By Edwin Yamauchi   

One hears conflicting estimates of Jesus. Christians believe he is incomparable, without a peer, but they are often quite ignorant of the lives of other great spiritual leaders. On the other hand, some people speak of Jesus, Buddha, Socrates and others without acknowledging any differences. Walter Lippmann, for example, remarks, “There is no doubt that in one form or another, Socrates and Buddha, Jesus and St. Paul, Plotinus and Spinoza, taught that the good life is impossible without asceticism….”1 Arnold Toynbee asks: “Now who are the individuals who are the greatest benefactors of the living generation of mankind? I should say: Confucius and Lao-tse; the Buddha; the Prophets of Israel and Judah; Zoroaster, Jesus, and Muhammad; and Socrates.”2 One may cite many syncretistic movements in the United States, Japan and elsewhere, such as Baha’i, which attempt to combine the teachings of various religious leaders.

The purpose of this essay is to highlight Jesus’ life, death and teachings by comparing and contrasting them with Zoroaster, Buddha, Socrates and Muhammad. We have chosen these four because many people today, in their search for meaning, are looking to these men and the traditions they have generated. We will divide the investigation into five categories: (1) the sources available for reconstructing the lives of these teachers, (2) their birth and family, (3) their life and teachings, (4) their death and (5) their relation to deity. After the data become clear, we will be able to see where the uniqueness of Jesus lies.

From a historian’s point of view there are serious disparities in the sources available for reconstructing the lives of Zoroaster, Buddha, Socrates, Muhammad and Jesus. We need to distinguish sharply between first-hand or nearly contemporary sources and later apocryphal and legendary materials.

Zoroaster (628-551 B.C.) We have what appear to be the genuine sayings of Zoroaster in the Gathas of the Avesta. The mass of Zoroastrian texts, however, are in late Pahlavi recensions (ninth century A.D.). Contemporary Old Persian cuneiform inscriptions betray at best only allusions to early Zoroastrianism. Some Greek and Arabic authors also allude to Zoroaster. The Persian national epic, the Shah Namah by Firdausi (c. A.D. 1000), includes traditions of the prophet.

Buddha (563-483 B.C.) Buddha’s teachings, after many centuries of being passed on orally, were written down for the first time in the first century B.C. in Ceylon. The earliest written texts which have been preserved are in Pali, an Indo-Aryan dialect which may be the dialect Buddha himself used. The Pali canon of the Hinayana school (the southern branch of Buddhism, also called the Theravada school) is known as the Tipitaka (Sanskrit Tripitaka), meaning “Three Baskets.” Portions of this collection, such as the Samyutta Nikaya, the Majjhima Nikaya and the Anguttara Nikaya, may have come into existence two centuries after Buddha’s death, but other portions originated much later.

The Sanskrit canon of the Mahayana school, which spread northeastward to Tibet, China, Korea and Japan, dates, at the earliest, to the first and second centuries A.D. According to Christmas Humphreys, “the later Sutras of the Mahayana School, though put into Buddha’s mouth, are clearly the work of minds which lived from five to fifteen hundred years after his passing.”3

In the later sources one notes a conspicuous exaggeration of the supernatural elements in Buddha’s life. But even the earliest traditions, separated as they are by a century or two from Buddha’s time, are not free from amplification. As M. Winternitz observes, “Even what are generally considered to be our oldest documents, the texts of the Pali Tipitaka, speak of Buddha often enough as a superhuman being, and tell us more of the legendary man than of the historical Buddha.”4

Socrates (469-399 B.C.) We are fortunate in having the accounts of two of Socrates’ own disciples, Plato and Xenophon, as well as notices collected by Diogenes Laertius (third century A.D.). We cannot accept these accounts uncritically, of course, because it is difficult to know how much of Plato’s dialogues is really Socratic and how much Platonic. Another problem is that Xenophon’s Memorabilia and other writings were composed to refute the Sophists’ attacks against Socrates.

Muhammad (570-632 A.D.) In the Qur’an (Koran) we have the authentic sayings of Muhammad, which were at first written down on skins, palm leaves, pottery and even the shoulder blades of sheep. Shortly after the prophet’s death the caliph Uthman (644-55) collected these sayings in a canonical edition. In the Hadith we have numerous oral traditions about the words and actions of Muhammad, traditions involving even such details as his regularly brushing his teeth. Some two centuries after the prophet’s death Al-Bukhari sifted through some 600,000 traditions to obtain 7,000 Hadith which he thought were genuine. The first life of Muhammad, based on the Qur’an and the Hadith, is the ninth-century Sirat ar-Rasul by Ibn Hisham.

Jesus (5 B.C.-30 A.D.) Our main sources of information about the life of Jesus are the canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There is some dispute over the identity of the authors, but it is generally held that Matthew, a converted tax-collector, and John, a fisherman, were two of Jesus’ apostles. Mark was an eyewitness as Jesus and the apostles met in his home, and later he learned more about Jesus from Peter, whom, according to Irenaeus, he served as an interpreter. Luke, a physician who accompanied Paul, made use of eyewitness accounts for his Gospel. Mark, the earliest Gospel, may have been written as early as A.D. 50; Luke was probably written before A.D. 64; and Matthew shortly after A.D. 70. Although it has been customary to date John’s Gospel approximately A.D. 90, some scholars have recently favored a date in the 70’s or 80’s. Jesus spoke in Aramaic, but the Gospels are in Greek.

Click here for the full article and active footnotes.

HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO EPHESIANS 1:4-5?

By Greg Boyd, Ph.D.

Question: Ephesians 1 refers to believers as predestined before the foundation of the world. How do you reconcile this with your view that free actions of people (like choosing to believe in Christ) can’t be predestined or even foreknown ahead of time?

Answer: It took three hundred years before anyone in Church history interpreted the New Testament to teach that God individually predestines certain people to go to heaven, and “leaves” (viz. a nice way of saying “predestines”) all others to go to hell. Augustine’s interpretation decisively influenced Church history, and was followed by the early Protestant Reformers and those who continued in the Reformed tradition. The fact that you have trouble reading the verses you mention in a non-Calvinist way testifies to how influential this tradition continues to be in terms of how we (as opposed to the pre-Augustinian church) read the Bible.

As you mention in your question, one of the texts most frequently appealed to in support of this view is Ephesians 1.

He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love. He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will…. (Eph. 1:4–5)

In keeping with the Jewish practice of his day, I think Paul was speaking of a corporate election in this passage. When Jews thought of election or predestination, they thought primarily of the nation of Israel. Israel as a nation was elected (not for salvation, but for service). But this didn’t mean that every individual born into Israel was part of God’s chosen people. Only those who kept covenant with God were considered “true Israelites.”

Notice that Paul doesn’t say that God chose us to be in Christ. He rather says God chose us in Christ to be holy and blameless. What God chose from the foundation of the world was that whoever is in Christ will be holy and blameless.

Suppose I conduct a conference at which I show a movie clip from The Princess Bride. You choose at the last moment to attend this conference. At the end of the movie clip you raise your hand and ask, “Mr. Boyd, when did you decide that we’d have to watch that silly movie clip,” to which I might respond, “Well, I decide that six months ago.” You then turn around and say, quite accurately, to the whole conference, “Mr. Boyd predestined us to watch this movie clip six months ago.”

But notice, I didn’t predestine that you individually would watch this movie clip. What I predestined is that whoever shows up at this conference would watch this movie clip. Now that you decided (even at the last minute) to be part of this conference, what was predestined for the whole becomes predestined for you. You are part of the “us” who was predestined to watch the clip.

So too, from the foundation of the world God predestined that whoever is in Christ would become holy and blameless in his sight. But he didn’t predestine certain individuals — as opposed to other unfortunate individuals — to be in Christ. This is left up to our choice. Now that you’ve chosen to be in Christ, what was predestined for the group becomes predestined for you. You, with Paul, can say “In Christ WE (who have chosen to believe) were predestined to be holy and blameless…”

I’m convinced this is what Paul is communicating in this passage.

By Asa Jones 

My twenty years of atheism ended when I discovered Biblical truths through a change in the way I had been interpreting scripture. My autobiographical account can be read here: From Skepticism to Worship.

Learning to think spiritually isn’t about accepting the supernatural. I am referring to that part of the human intellect that allows the mind to understand things that are not readily made obvious or explicitly stated. It is the same skill involved in interpreting poetry or in detecting the nuances that are present in higher literature. Most people already have this ability; they just need to learn how to apply it when it comes to the issue of God.

If you are an atheist who is interested in seeing if he can tune into God, I recommend that you first read “The Tao of Pooh” by Benjamin Hoff. It’s short, sweet and easy to understand. Atheistic in its philosophy, this book will put you on the path to understanding truth in paradox. A paradox is that which appears to contradict, but upon closer examination, really does not. “The Tao of Pooh” removed much of my arrogance and knocked the owl right out of me, effectively diminishing two barriers that had allowed me to shut God out of my perception.

Okay! Now that you ran out and did that, I’ve devised some lessons in spiritual thinking for you. Think about the following examples and how they apply to the concept of God before reading my analysis. No peeking! Have fun!

Click here for the full article.

By Fazale Rana, Ph.D.

When I was growing up I enjoyed watching reruns of the television series Flipper. As a little kid, I was quite fond of this unusually intelligent dolphin. According to new research, Neanderthals were fond of dolphins as well.* But instead of delighting in watching them perform, these hominids liked to eat them.

Neanderthals appear in the fossil record between 250,000 and 150,000 years ago and go extinct about 30,000 years ago. They lived in western Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. Popular views about human origins position Neanderthals as immediate predecessors to modern humans. Other more sophisticated treatments of human evolution, like multiregionalism, argue that these hominids gave rise only to European people groups.

Because of their potentially prominent role in human evolution, anthropologists are interested in Neanderthal biology and behavior. This interest motivated an international team of paleoanthropologists and archeologists to analyze the fossil and archeological remains from two coastal caves located in Gibraltar. These caves held several kinds of artifacts that included Neanderthal-made products located at specific levels and layers within the cave, and also artifacts attributed to modern humans found at different sites within the cave. Associated with these finds were fossilized animal bones interpreted as the food stuff leftover from hunting and gathering expeditions.

Cataloging the species that comprise the animal remains provided researchers some insight into the behavior of Neanderthals and some of the first modern humans. For both the Neanderthal and the modern human locales, researchers documented mollusk shells and the remains of red deer, ibex, wild boar, bear, birds, tortoises, and fish, as well as dolphins and seals. Additionally, the scientists discovered rhinoceros remains associated with the artifacts left behind by modern humans.

The researchers interpreted these results as evidence that Neanderthals and modern humans had similar hunting and gathering practices, and, therefore, had identical cognitive capabilities. They were particularly impressed with the ability of Neanderthals to make use of dolphins and seals as a food source. They argue that to effectively do so means that Neanderthals had some sense of the seasonal activities of these animals. Dolphins are known to beach themselves at certain times of the year. It appears as if Neanderthals and modern humans took advantage of beached animals. Seals come ashore during mating season. Presumably, Neanderthals and modern humans clubbed these animals to death during mating season. Interestingly, only juvenile seal remains were recovered from the Neanderthal sites, indicating that they likely went after easier targets.

Based on this new insight, some anthropologists conclude that Neanderthals had skills that compared to modern humans alive at that time, since they seemed to have exploited the same range of resources as modern humans, and likely used similar tactics to hunt and gather. If so, does this mean that Neanderthals are no different than modern humans? What does this discovery mean for the RTB model of human origins?

Click here for the full article.

By Jeff Zweerink, Ph.D.

Every now and again, a cool scientific discovery comes along that doesn’t have an obvious apologetic connection. I have decided that these discoveries occasionally warrant mention simply because they are interesting. So, here are three.

1. Most Distant Gamma-ray Burst

One aspect of my research in gamma-ray astronomy involved looking for very high-energy gamma rays associated with gamma-ray bursts (GRBs). These events rank as the most energetic processes occurring in the universe. Scientists have detected thousands of GRBs since they were first discovered in the 1960s (for a description of their serendipitous discovery, see this site). The most distant GRB yet detected occured when the universe was a mere 800 million years old. This places it among the most distant objects in our universe ever observed.

2. Brightest Gamma-ray Burst

Another GRB discovered stands as the most distant object viewable with the naked eye. All the individual stars one observes when looking at the night sky inhabit our Milky Way Galaxy and therefore are no more than a hundred thousand light-years away (the diameter of the Milky Way). At 2.5 million light-years away, the Andromeda Galaxy is one of the few objects outside the Milky Way visible to the naked eye (at least for those in the northern hemisphere). The brightest GRB, designated GRB 080319B, was briefly visible to the naked eye, even though it occurred 7.5 billion years ago, more than halfway across the observable universe!

3. Earth’s Oldest Crust Material

Here on planet Earth scientists recently found the oldest known rocks. Dated at 4.28 billion years old, these rocks best the previous oldest known rocks by 300 million years. Although Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago, rocks more than three billion years old are rare because they have usually been eroded and/or recycled back into Earth’s interior via plate tectonics. These particular rocks escaped that fate and were found along the Hudson Bay in Northern Quebec.

Posted at Reasons.org

By Lee Strobel
This video lasts 8:17

By Kenneth R. Samples, M.Th.

What factors go into making a powerful and persuasive apologetic witness to the truth of Christianity?

Biblically speaking, the ultimate reason that a person comes to faith in Jesus Christ is the efficacious work of God’s Spirit in that individual’s mind and soul (Ephesians 2:4-5; Titus 3:5). God uses the Gospel message (the “good news” concerning Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection) to call and enable a person to repent of their sin and to accept Christ as Lord and Savior (Romans 10:17; Ephesians 2:8-9).

Historic Christianity affirms grace (the unmerited favor and love of God) as the basis of salvation, whereas, faith (confident trust in Christ) is the instrument by which a person receives it. The Protestant Reformers proclaimed that salvation comes by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Yet God uses the limited and imperfect apologetic and evangelistic efforts of his church to bring people to this glorious new life of salvation. Apologetics is an important enterprise that helps both believer and non-believer to see the basic reasonableness and truthfulness of Christianity.

In this article I will discuss three factors that apologetically impact people in terms of persuasion concerning the truth of historic Christianity.

Christian Apologetic Logos, Ethos, and Pathos

The great Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) wrote about the enterprise known as rhetoric, the art of persuasion. He introduced the modes of persuasion as including logos, ethos, and pathos. Let’s examine these dynamics of persuasion in light of Christian apologetics.

1. Logos: This Greek term, meaning word, is used in the New Testament itself (John 1:1) and has come to refer to the appeal to the rational and intellectual sphere of life. In fact, the English word logic is derived from this word. When Christian apologists appeal to reason, logic, and rationality to support the truth-claims of their faith, they are engaged in the persuasive use of logos (persuading through the use of reason). The New Testament word (apologia) from which we get the word apologetics refers to “a reasoned defense of the faith” (1 Peter 3:15). The logos aspect of persuasion focuses on the clarity, consistency, and cogency of the message being delivered up for consideration.

In applying directly to an individual’s reason, the Christian apologist shows respect for a person’s inherent rational abilities. While some contemporary Christian groups seem to devalue the place of reason in the Christian life, the clear apologetic consensus throughout church history is that the faith involves knowledge and is compatible with reason. Non-believers need to know that the Christian worldview holds together logically and makes sense of the world and life. And apologists need to be skilled in their use of reason and logic.

2. Ethos: This Greek term appeals to the sphere of moral credibility. The English word ethics is derived from ethos. People tend to believe and thus become persuaded by those whom they respect and trust, those who possess moral credibility.

The Christian apologist can sincerely convey the impression of trustworthiness when his life matches his words. A person’s character and reputation go along way in impacting believability. Peter exhorts apologists within the early church to carry on the defense of the faith with “gentleness and respect” and “keeping a clear conscience” (1 Peter 3:15-16). In terms of persuasion, the demeanor and attitude of apologists may carry as much weight as their arguments.

3. Pathos: This Greek term gave rise to the English words sympathy and empathy. This mode of persuasion appeals to emotion. When people are “touched,” or have their emotions “evoked,” they tend to relate to an issue in a personal way. When people can identify with a cause, their commitment level often runs deep.

The Gospel message of God’s love for sinners and Christ’s sacrifice on the cross tends to grip people at the core of their being. It is critical for apologists to tie the defense of the faith closely to Christian theology. People tend to love a good story and the Gospel is the greatest story ever told.

Christian apologists are in the business of persuasion, and Aristotle’s rhetorical modes of persuasion can be used as effective tools in the trade.

For more on building the skills of persuasion in the area of apologetics, see my book A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test.

By Rich Deem, M.Sc. 

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says “Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions.” Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth’s age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

By Matt Slick

How do you respond to someone’s claim that the Bible is not inspired? Is there a way to prove inspiration or, at least, intelligently present evidence for its inspiration? The answer is, “Yes!” One of the best ways to prove inspiration is by examining prophecy. There are many religious books in the world that have many good things to say. But only the Bible has fulfilled prophecies–with more fulfillments to come. The Bible has never been wrong in the past, and it won’t be wrong in the future. It claims inspiration from God (2 Timothy 3:16). Since God is the creator of all things (Isaiah 44:24), then He is also the creator of time. It is under His control. Only God, then, would always be right about what is in the future, our future.

Fulfilled prophecy is strong evidence that God is the author of the Bible, because when you look at the mathematical odds of prophecy being fulfilled, you quickly see a design, a purpose, and a guiding hand behind the Bible. If just one prophecy failed, then we would know that God is not the true God, because the creator of all things, which includes time, would not be wrong about predicting the future. Deuteronomy 18:22 says, “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously” (NIV). Isaiah 46:9-10 says, “Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.”

One approach to use with an unbeliever is to turn to Psalm 22 and read verses 12-18. This is a detailed description of the crucifixion–1000 years before Jesus was born. After you read the section ask him what it was about. He’ll say, “The crucifixion of Jesus.” Then respond with something like, “You’re right. This is about the crucifixion. But it was written 1000 years before Jesus was born. And on top of that, crucifixion hadn’t even been invented yet.  How do you think something like this could happen?” After a brief discussion, you could show him (or her) a few other prophecies like where Jesus’ birthplace was prophesied (Micah 5:2), that He would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), that His side would be pierced (Zechariah 12:10), etc.

Click here for the full article.

By Matt Slick 

Adoptionism is an error concerning Christ that first appeared in the second century. Those who held it denied the preexistence of Christ and, therefore, His deity. Adoptionists taught that Jesus was tested by God and after passing this test and upon His baptism, He was granted supernatural powers by God and adopted as the Son.  As a reward for His great accomplishments and perfect character Jesus was raised from the dead and adopted into the Godhead.

This error arose out of an attempt by people to understand the two natures of Jesus. The scriptures tell us that Jesus is both God and man: “for Him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form,” (Colossians 2:9).  This is known as the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union where in the one person of Christ, there are two natures:  God and man.

Theodotus of Byzantium was the most prominent adherent to this error. Adoptionism was condemned as a heresy by Pope Victor (A.D. 190-198).

8th Century revision

Adoptionism was later revived in the 8th Century in Spain by Elipandus, archbishop of Toledo, and Felix, bishop of Urgel.  This was a variation of the first error but it held that Christ was the Son of God in respect to his divine nature, but that as a man, he was only adopted as the first born of God.

In 798 Pope Leo III held a council at Rome that condemned adoptionism as a heresy.

Posted at CARM.org