FIGURING OUT THE TRUTH BEHIND THE BELIEF ARE all gods the...

Jose Philip

A Discussion on Truth, Knowledge, And Opinion

ARE all gods

the same?

WW373

FIGURING OUT THE TRUTHBEHIND THE BELIEFWith so many religions claiming to show the path to God, it can be difficult to understand why some, like Christianity, insist on being exclusive in their claims. After all, why should there be an exclusive truth? Why can’t we agree to disagree? Aren’t all religions essentially the same? Jose Philip explores these and other critical questions about religion as he digs into our understanding of truth, opinion, and what we really believe.

Jose Philip is an itinerant preacher, teacher, Christian apologist, and author. A former biologist, Jose now serves as an evangelist and apologist with the Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (Asia-Pacific). He also lectures on apologetics, Christian ethics, and gospel and culture.

Discovery Series presents biblical insights for all areas of life. To read any of over 100 titles, visit discoveryseries.org

1

Don’t all religions lead to the same god? Aren’t all gods the same? Why is Christianity so exclusive

in its beliefs? Isn’t truth relative? Why can’t we just agree to disagree?

You might have asked such questions whenever someone tried to talk to you about God and religion. And they are good questions!

Preface

2

Jose Philip, an itinerant preacher, teacher, and Christian apologist, addressess these questions in a logical manner. Taking a philosophical approach rather than a religious one, he looks at the issues of exclusivity, relative versus absolute truth, and foundations of knowledge—important issues that affect the answer to the question, “Are all gods the same?”

You might find this piece a little unusual: it has a non-linear structure, and chapters may not seem to flow smoothly into each other. It might even seem like Jose is jumping from one topic to another. But that’s deliberate. When figuring out a complex object, we will take our time to turn it around in our hands, inspecting it from different angles. In the same way, Jose will spend time examing the different facets of the bigger debate on truth, inspecting the foundations of knowledge, beliefs, and opinions, and hopefully get a clearer picture of the whole issue.

Even more importantly, we’re not aiming to persuade you to change your beliefs overnight. Rather, Jose is hoping to encourage you to think a little more about what you currently believe and

We’re not aiming to persuade you to change your beliefs overnight.

3

think, and to question their basis just as you question the claims of Christianity.

Read on to continue this journey of discovery!

EDITOR: Asia Pacific Content Development TeamCOVER DESIGN: Mary ThamCOVER IMAGE: shutterstock.comINTERIOR DESIGN: Grace GohINTERIOR IMAGES: (pp. 1, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23, 27, 33, 37, 45) shutterstock.com

The themes in “Are All Gods the Same?” can also be found in Since You Asked, a new book by Jose Philip (not published yet at the time of printing of this booklet)

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2015 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

All rights reserved© 2019 Our Daily Bread MinistriesPrinted in Singapore

contents

introductionAre All Gods the Same? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

one

Can’t We Agree to Disagree? . . . . . . . . . . 11

twoIsn’t Truth Subjective? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

threeAren’t All Religions the Same? . . . . . . . . . 19

four

Why Should Truth Be Exclusive? . . . . . . . 23

fiveWhy Do We Believe What We Believe? . . . 27

sixHow Can We Discover the Truth? . . . . . . . 33

sevenHow Can We Discover God? . . . . . . . . . . . 37

eightNow What? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

7

The idea that truth is exclusive does not sit well with many people today, does it?

Many of us cherish the liberty to decide for ourselves what is true and what is not. At the same time, we often demand that others be truthful with us. This presents us with a conundrum. How can we expect anyone to be truthful when, as my 12-year-old—who has quite the imagination—recently

introduction

Are All Gods the Same?A Discussion on Truth, Knowledge, and Opinion

8 ARE ALL GODS THE SAME?

declared, “making things up” is so much more interesting?

Making things up—or assuming them to be true—is not something only children do. We tend to place more value on how we feel, or whether something works for us, than on whether it is actually true. Truth is relative, we are often told, and this is an idea that those who hold strongly to their religious convictions will struggle with.

As an itinerant speaker, I am frequently asked to speak on a wide variety of topics. Once, I was asked to explore the question, “Do all paths lead to the same God?” To prepare, I decided to conduct a quick survey. I wanted to know two things: Did people actually believe that all religions are the same? And, why?

So, every time I found myself in a coffee shop or library, I would get out my laptop and type the words, “Why would anyone believe that all religions lead to the same God?” in a font big enough for the person sitting next to me to notice.

It was a fascinating experiment, and I had some very interesting conversations as a result. Often, it did not take long before someone leaned over and asked, “Why not?”

Are All Gods the Same?

9

I discovered that many people, whether religious or not, believe that all religions are the same—even if they are unfamiliar with the claims or teachings of those religions. What struck me was that most of these people also believed that they were entitled to their opinions. For many, the right to be heard was of absolute importance—perhaps even more than discovering the truth.

In a way, it wasn’t a surprise. Deciding for ourselves what truth is follows logically from the belief that truth is relative. As a result, we find it rude—even arrogant—for someone to make exclusive claims about the truth. Now, if we pause to think about this issue and ask ourselves, “Is this something new, or have humans always thought this way?” we might discover something very interesting.

Deciding for ourselves what truth is follows

logically from the belief that truth

is relative.

Are All Gods the Same?

11

Let’s agree to disagree.”

That’s what a good friend of mine used to say whenever we argued about our beliefs. And it

seems to be the preferred response to the question of whether all views of God are equally valid. Essentially, it is a rejection of specific, exclusive claims about who God is, preferring instead the idea that all claims may be true, or that it is impossible for us to know which one is actually true. Perhaps you hold a similar view, too.

one

Can’t We Agree to Disagree?


There is a history behind this approach of seeing truth as relative. Knowing a bit about it will help us understand why people might question absolute truth claims and give greater weight to personal feelings.

In many ways, “truth is relative” is a modern notion that came from the Age of Reason, also called the Age of Enlightenment. This era, which gripped much of the Western world well into the 18th century, championed human reason for giving rise to significant progress in science and technology, and major social shifts, such as the Industrial Revolution. But this gave rise to some challenges.

The focus on rational thought strengthened the consolidation of technology, which fuelled runaway ambition and the desire for world domination by a select few. These resulted in two world wars, which eventually led to a general disillusionment with authority in every sphere—political, social, economic, and religious. Many turned away from following reason,

In many ways, “truth is relative” is

a modern notion that came from

the Age of Reason, also called the Age of Enlightenment.


13

and retreated to valuing personal experience and thought.

What does this mean for us today? Because of concerns over what rational thought can lead to, pragmatism and personal preference—what works and what makes sense to each of us—have become the foundation for much of our thinking today. Truth is often reduced to a matter of preference, and individual viewpoints are exalted as truth. A shift has taken place: we have moved on from trying to understand and agree on a common truth, to creating and promoting our own views as true. This has lead to common retorts like, “Why do you want to make a big deal about your truth? I don’t about mine!”

While earlier philosophers sought to understand reality as it is, many of today’s thinkers are more concerned with impression rather than investigation. While the former acknowledged the existence of God, the latter rejects or is indifferent to this idea. But if we really want to discover the truth, impression alone is inadequate.

Of course, we should be thankful when people choose to agree to disagree, agreeably. If you and I do not learn to live with our disagreements harmoniously, we would destroy ourselves. However, you can also see that to merely agree to disagree and not move beyond our opinions to discover the truth



is equally fraught with problems. For a start, the commitment to hold on to what we believe as true is founded on the assumption that belief will make our own “truth” a reality. Will it?

15

You might still be wondering: So what’s wrong with “agreeing to disagree”? Isn’t it a good thing? Well, in some ways—but not

when the truth really matters.

Consider this scenario: a patient who is suffering from lung cancer goes to a group of oncologists, from whom he is hoping to get an accurate diagnosis and treatment. But the doctors are unable to agree on what needs to be done, and so decide to do nothing more than “agree to disagree”. One of them doesn’t

two

Isn’t Truth Subjective?


even acknowledge that the patient is sick at all. This patient is probably not going to live long!

Or, think of the story of the six blind men trying to describe what they are touching (an elephant). This parable is often used to remind us to refrain from making absolute truth claims, especially about God. Depending on which part of the animal they touch, the blind men conclude (erroneously) that the elephant is like a tree trunk, a snake, a fan, or a wall. The presumed lesson is that as humans with limited vision of the infinite, it is impossible for us to make accurate observations about the divine.

If you think about this conclusion a bit more, however, you can see that it is fraught with problems on multiple levels—logically, analogically, and theologically.

Logically speaking, it makes no sense to demand that no exclusive truth claims be made, for such a demand is in itself exclusive.

Analogically speaking, this line of thought leads us nowhere. Imagine the six blind men getting together and discussing what they had touched. Would they be able to conclude that the object they felt was an elephant? I doubt it. But does this mean, then, that the elephant did not exist in the first place? Or that an elephant and a tree trunk are somehow the same?

Isn't Truth Subjective?

17

Theologically speaking, the only person who can shed light on this situation and provide an accurate perspective is one who has sight and can therefore see the whole elephant. If we apply this line to our core question, “Do all religions lead to the same God?” we must then ask: if humans are limited by their own perspectives, then who or what can lead us to the truth about God?

The Elephant: A Different Story? Ironically, while the story of the blind men and the elephant is today nuanced to dissuade people from promoting absolute truth or exclusive religious claims, that is not how the story was always told.

We’re not sure when the parable first came about or how it was originally told, but Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, used it to produce a totally different conclusion. His lesson was this: people who assume that their point of view is all there is to the truth are like blind men attempting to describe an elephant as a tree trunk, a snake, a fan,

If humans are limited by their

own perspectives, then who or what can lead us to the truth about God?

Isn't Truth Subjective?


or a wall. Their conclusions are wrong because there is in fact an absolute truth—that is, the elephant! Understandably, the blind men’s ability to fully comprehend this is limited. But this does not mean that objective truth—the elephant—does not exist. In this version, the parable of the blind men and the elephant, far from promoting relativism, actually underscores our responsibility to know the truth.

You can see that this poses a significant challenge to how people think about religious truth. As the illustrations of the patient with lung cancer and the six blind men show, truth cannot be subjective. And while it is true that truth cannot always be exhaustively grasped, it does not mean that it cannot be meaningfully comprehended.

19

It is possible for all religions to be wrong. But is it possible for all religions to be equally true?

Consider the fundamental portrayals of God according to some of the main religions, and you will see that it is impossible to harmonise what they are saying. Let’s take a look at some of the main religious beliefs—including atheism, as it has a lot to say about God as well.

While atheism dismisses any belief in the existence of God, Hinduism, at least at a popular

three

Aren’t All Religions the Same?


level, affirms a multitude of gods and goddesses. Buddhism, which came from the rejection of Hinduism, has two major forms: Theravada, which is practised in India, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar, is atheistic in its belief system; while Mahayana, which is practised in China, Japan, and South-east Asia, is mixed with popular Hinduism and encourages the worship of the Buddha. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity share a common belief that there is one infinite and personal God. But Islam is purely monotheistic, while Christianity is both monotheistic and trinitarian.

These religions also differ in their definition of life and its origins.

The atheist believes that everything we see, including plant, animal, and human life, came about by a series of accidental processes. Hinduism views life as a cycle of births and rebirths; at its core, it says, life is an illusion. Buddhism holds a similar view of reincarnation, but believes that at its core, life is suffering, so the supreme goal of life is to end up in Nirvana. This is a Sanskrit word that implies

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity share a common belief that there

is one infinite and personal God.

Aren't All Religions the Same?

21

nakedness; it says that there are no distinctions for the individual as he or she merges with the ultimate impersonal “it” of nothingness.

Buddhism instructs its followers to take the eight-fold path to life, while Taoism asserts that the Tao is “the way” for a person to cultivate his or her true nature to return to pure “oneness”. Islam and the Judeo-Christian worldview hold unswervingly to the belief that humans are neither a cosmic accident nor an illusion. They believe that humanity—and the rest of creation—is the intentional work of an intelligent creator. But while Judaism and Christianity teach that God created humans in his image, Islam strongly opposes the notion that there can be any similarity between God and human beings.

You can read more about what these religions say about themselves (see websites on next page), among many other resources.

Given these fundamental differences between the various beliefs, it would not make sense to say, “Aren’t all religions the same?” One cannot attain Hindu Mukthi by following the Tao, Nirvana by following Confucius, or have eternal life unless one is a follower of Jesus Christ. They have deep, irreconcilable differences, and treating them as equally valid would be ignoring the truth.

Aren't All Religions the Same?


It can be challenging to describe each faith and summarise its beliefs and values fairly and accurately, as there may be a range of interpretations. You can read more about some of these religions in the following online resources. This list is not exhaustive.

Hinduismwww.britannica.com/topic/Hinduismwww.hinduismtoday.com/www.thehinduhub.org/resources/downloads

Buddhismthebuddhistcentre.com/buddhismwww.buddhanet.net/e-learning/5minbud.htmwww.britannica.com/topic/Buddhism

Taoismwww.taoism.org.sgwww.iep.utm.edu/daoism/www.taoist.org/taoism-cultivating-body-mind-spirit/

Islamwww.whyislam.org/www.islamreligion.com/www.islamicity.org/8304/understanding-islam-and-muslims/

Judaismwww.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3710122/jewish/What-Is-Judaism.htmwww.myjewishlearning.com/article/judaism/www.oneforisrael.org/bible-based-teaching-from-israel/judaism/

In our search for the truth, we often say that we are not being exclusive, as we respect each other’s truth: “You’re right, and so am I.” But isn’t

that being exclusivist in our thinking? What we’re essentially doing is holding firmly to what we believe, and forcing others to accept that our belief is true, even if they disagree with it.

When we dismiss exclusive claims about truth and deny that only one way is right—insisting that all religions should be treated as equal—are we not being exclusivists? Anyone who makes a claim about truth—even the one who says that truth is relative—

four

Why Should Truth Be Exclusive?

23


is claiming exclusivity.

Of course, we might say that we “agree to disagree” when others don’t hold our views. However, this approach tends to be based on courtesy (or conceit), rather than conviction. While we claim that we are respecting each other, we are in fact still imposing our “personal” truths on each other.

Ultimately, however, the truth does matter. If we hold to the belief that each individual can determine his own reality and order his life accordingly, it will have implications for society’s moral standards: we may start upholding our personal preferences at the expense of others, living life our own way according to our “truth” even if others suffer as a result.

The idiom “one man’s meat is another man’s poison” teaches that each of us has different preferences that should be respected. However, if we were to take this saying literally, the absolute truth would be of deadly importance! Even if you respected my choice, I would still be eating poison.

You can see how some people confuse opinion and knowledge. Knowledge is the ability to describe something as it is; opinion is what we are free to have about anything, irrespective of our knowledge. It is when we mix the two up and mistake an opinion for knowledge that we feel at liberty to determine what is true. And if truth is merely what one makes it out to be, then nothing is factually true.


25

An Issue of Indifference?

In an attempt to avoid giving offence by sounding exclusive, some of us may try to dismiss the truth. In effect, we are saying, “We can agree to disagree, because the truth doesn’t matter.”

But consider this: if we ignore the possibility that absolute truth exists and insist that we can determine our own truth about all religions, do we not run the risk of shallow thinking? We have seen how

it is impossible to reconcile the different religions. Could the real problem be a case of indifference? Is that why we entertain the idea that all religions lead to the same God—not because we know it to be true, but because we wish it to be true? Or worse, because we couldn’t care less?

In our journey towards truth, let us remember that exclusivity is not the problem; the problem, if any, is indifference. Or perhaps we’re predisposed to think that all religions lead to the same God, or were brought up to value tolerance at the expense of

Knowledge is the ability to describe something as it is; opinion is what we

are free to have about anything,

irrespective of our knowledge.



truth. But can we not be exclusivist with the truth, and yet continue to be gracious?

Have you ever wondered: Why do people object to those who make exclusive truth claims about their own religion? I believe

that these objections come about because they are viewing these claims from three intellectual positions or “postures”—misplaced confidence, masked arrogance, and mistaken trust. These three postures are in fact related: the first two are effectively two sides of the same coin, and the third underpins the first two.

five

Why Do We Believe What We Believe?

27


Misplaced Confidence Many people conclude that all religions lead to the same God because they do not have exhaustive knowledge of every religion to conclude otherwise. It would seem that they hold to the view that the great religions must surely be the same, for they all teach us to be good, to love, to serve others, to take care of the weak, to do no harm, and to speak the truth. Therefore, they reason, none of these religions can be wrong, and all must surely be right.

You can see, however, that this view largely ignores the tenets and principles that are foundational to these religions, as we saw earlier. It doesn’t want to dismiss any religion as wrong because of a misplaced confidence that all of them must surely be correct.

Masked Arrogance Then there are those who believe that it is wrong to say that only one way is right. They find it egocentric to claim that any one religion is right and the others are wrong. Since we are mortal, they reason, who are we to say what is right and wrong?

They find it egocentric to claim

that any one religion is right

and the others are wrong.


29

However, when they profess that “all paths lead to the same ultimate truth”, aren’t they claiming to know more than all the founders of these religions put together? Each of these founders, whether Buddha, Mohammed, or Jesus, claims one exclusive path to God. In dismissing their exclusive claims, would we not be taking a posture of masked arrogance?

Mistaken Trust Underlying the first two postures, I believe, is the posture of mistaken trust. Once, when I questioned a man’s belief that all religions are equally true, he became visibly distraught. “How could you, an Indian, even raise such a question?” he protested. “I am sure you are familiar with what Mahatma Gandhi said.”

Gandhi, who led India to independence and is widely seen as the father of the nation, believed that all religions were essentially the same. Was this gentleman appealing to Gandhi because I am an Indian? When asked, he replied with a smile, “Yes”!

This man’s response is typical of how many people understand the truth—through the voice of the popular.

You’d probably agree that the “might is right” dictum is wrong, because we know that sheer power is not a test for the truth. Why, then, do we not conclude the same when it comes to the “popular”?



Why do we think that popularity makes something right?

I am not suggesting that being a popular voice in and of itself is bad. Rather, I am asking: “Does exemplary standing in one thing automatically grant someone infallibility in all things?” Many of the people who believe that all religions lead to the same God are kind, intelligent, and sincere. But sincerity, like popularity, is not a test for the truth: I can

be sincere, but sincerely wrong.

It is true that Gandhi stood head and shoulders above the rest of his countrymen, and as an Indian, I owe my nation’s freedom to his courage and selfless service. But did that make him right in his belief about the equality of all religions?

It is no secret that the teachings of Jesus, especially the Sermon on the Mount, had a profound impact on Gandhi. Yet he could not accept Christianity on its own terms. He picked and chose aspects of Christianity that appealed to him, and reinterpreted them from his perspective

How do we get to know and understand something,

whether it is a religion or God?


31

as a Hindu. He did the same with the teachings of Gautama Buddha, whom he saw as a great reformer of Hinduism.

In essence, Gandhi was considering the truth claims of different religions from the vantage point of the follower, not the founder. In believing him, however, would we not be taking a posture of misplaced trust? Are we choosing to not take sides because we want to believe that each religious founder is right (or can’t be wrong)?

To address such issues, we need to consider this question: How do we get to know and understand something, whether a religion or God?


Before setting out on a quest to discover something, we first have to make one fundamental assumption—that knowledge

of that thing is possible. Then we can go on to acquire knowledge about that thing or person. This knowledge comes to us in various ways. For example, we know about the law of gravity very differently from the love of someone close to us. I can see at least five ways of acquiring knowledge: intuition, investigation, experience, history (or tradition), and revelation. Intuition is what we know without conscious

six

How Can We Discover the Truth?

33


reasoning. A priori knowledge, as philosophers call it, is something we already have before we are exposed to it; it is independent of experience. Take, for example, beauty. If I asked you, “Isn’t that rose beautiful?” you can be sure that I am not asking you to infer this based on what just happened to your eyes. Yes, the eyes focus the light rays reflected from the rose and produce an image on the retina that is transmitted to the brain. But that is not how we come to appreciate beauty. We have a priori sense of what’s considered beautiful without having to think about it, and we use it to judge what we see.

Investigation is the application of thought to gain knowledge. It requires us to evaluate theories and interpretations so that we can explain our observation. Take the study of gravity, for example. Observation tells us that gravity keeps us from drifting into space, while investigation helps us discover that the larger and closer the object, the stronger the force of attraction it exerts. Investigation tests what we suspect to be true intuitively, and helps us to acquire knowledge to articulate the truth more clearly. It leads to informed action with far greater

This knowledge of love changes and intensifies when we ourselves love.


35

certainty than intuition alone.

Experience gives us personal knowledge of things that need more than mere information. We all have an intuitive sense of love, for example, and we have observed people in loving relationships. This knowledge of love changes and intensifies when we ourselves love. And our appreciation of how incredibly nuanced and beautifully diverse love can be grows with every experience we have.

No amount of investigation or intuition will ever give us what experience can. This doesn’t mean we should therefore place a greater value on experience; it simply means that experience is another important facet of how we know something.

History gives us knowledge that is investigative, but this is different from the knowledge we get from science. Science specialises in knowing what can be repeatedly tested, whereas history offers us knowledge of the “non-repeatable”. How do we know Julius Caesar existed? How do we know what the ancient civilisations of India built? The answers come to us from the study of history, which lifts the curtains of time so that we can know what happened in the past.

Finally, revelation enables us to know people (as opposed to concepts or events). These people must participate in our quest for knowledge, as they need to tell us about themselves, or others who know



them personally must inform us. History can tell us what Hitler did, and intuitively or experientially we can conclude that he did horrible things. However, we cannot know who Hitler really was without personal revelation. Unless we hear from those who knew him personally, it is impossible for us to separate the truth of who he was from what he is made out to be. When we want to know people as they truly are, revelation is our primary

source of information.

Having seen how these five methods can help us discover the truth, we can next ask: What can they tell us about God?

When we want to know people as they truly are, revelation is our

primary source of information.

We have seen how believing that all religions are equally valid is to ignore their differences. So how can we come

to a meaningful appreciation of the truth about God? Can we consider using intuition, investigation, experience, history, and revelation to ask meaningful questions in our search for honest answers about God?

If God were merely a figment of one’s imagination, intuition would suffice. If God was some sort of energy or force, personal experience is all we would need. But what if God were a personal being? That would require revelation. As we learn

seven

How Can We Discover God?

37


about a God who has acted in history and interacted with humanity, the different methods of discovering knowledge can teach us about God in different ways. Intuition can help us deal with the notion of God. Experience can aid our appreciation of the presence of God. Investigation and history will help us see the effects of interaction between God and man. And revelation will help us know the person of God.

As we ask these questions about the nature of God, we need to keep in mind the acute difference between exhaustive knowledge and meaningful knowledge. As finite creatures, we can know things meaningfully with a high degree of certainty. However, we cannot have exhaustive knowledge, especially when it comes to knowledge of persons—including ourselves!

Why Not Start with Jesus? I often tell people who are interested in the truth about God to start with Jesus. Many believe I say this because of my Christian convictions. While I cannot deny my Christian worldview, my reason for this

Investigation and history will help us see the effects

of interaction between God and

man.


39

suggestion has more to do with the nature of truth and Jesus’ claims.

As we have seen, truth is exclusive: it excludes what is erroneous. We also know that contradictory truth claims cannot be all equally true. At the same time, however, an alternative to an erroneous truth claim need not be true—it can be just as erroneous. For example, 2 x 2 does not equal 5 just because 3 is wrong; the truth (in this case, 4) excludes everything other than itself.

If we apply these ideas to the truth claims of the different religions, we can safely conclude that while all religions cannot be equally true, they can all be equally false.

Now, what does all this have to do with my suggestion that anyone keen on finding out the truth about God should start with Jesus? It is simply this: Jesus’ claim is the easiest to disprove.

This might come as a surprise to many, but Jesus is the only one who claims to be God. This gives us an opportunity to try and prove him wrong. To put things in perspective, every religion expects its followers to accept its claims as true, without a tangible way to test these claims. Hinduism, for example, talks about Mukthi—being one with the infinite non-personal. Buddhism talks about Nirvana—enlightenment, with release from any sense of duality or self. However, it is impossible



to test these truth claims, because they cannot be proven to be false. As the Karmic cycle of birth and rebirth on which Mukthi is founded involves dying and being reborn in another form, the only way to confirm the claims of Hinduism is to die first.

Investigating the truth claims about Jesus, on the other hand, does not depend on our dying and coming back to life—it depends on his. This is why it is the easiest to disprove, if it were not true.

Jesus made it plain that he would die and rise to life three days later—a claim that baffled his first followers, then emboldened them later on. “He will be killed, but three days later he will rise from the dead,” he said of himself (Mark 9:31).

One does not need to become a Christian to investigate Jesus; all it requires is an honest look at history.

Why Does History Remember Jesus?Consider what the late Dr. James Allen Francis, an American pastor, said about Jesus in a sermon from 1926:1

A child is born in an obscure village. He is brought up in another obscure village. He works in a carpenter shop until he is thirty, and then for three brief years is an itinerant preacher, proclaiming a message and living a life.


41

He never writes a book. He never holds an office. He never raises an army. He never has a family of his own. He never owns a home. He never goes to college. He never travels two hundred miles from the place where he was born. He gathers a little group of friends about him and teaches them his way of life.

While still a young man, the tide of popular feeling turns against him. One denies him; another betrays him. He is turned over to his enemies. He goes through the mockery of a trial; he is nailed to a cross between two thieves, and when dead is laid in a borrowed grave by the kindness of a friend.

Those are the facts of his human life.

He rises from the dead.

Today we look back across nineteen hundred years and ask, What kind of trail has he left across the centuries? When we try to sum up his influence, all the armies that ever marched, all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned are absolutely picayune in their influence on mankind compared with that of this one solitary life.

Few people in human history have attracted such controversy over their identity as Jesus has. And all this on account of a death that he was sentenced to for claiming to be God.



So why does history remember Jesus so well? Because Jesus rose from the dead three days after he was crucified and buried in a tomb.

When his first disciples encountered the risen Jesus, they were emboldened to proclaim him as God to the very people who sentenced him to death. Convinced that Jesus was humanity’s only hope, they unashamedly declared this belief and persuaded others to follow Jesus—not because they thought he was a good man or a brilliant teacher, but because they believed he is God. One of his disciples, John, wrote how in Jesus, “we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son” (John 1:14).

Jesus’ first disciples believed that he alone was the “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). They declared that his gospel “is the power of God at work, saving everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16).

Through the centuries, irrespective of nationality, ethnicity, economic background, language, or religious upbringing, people have become followers of Jesus because they believed that he alone is God.

And, in obedience to his commandment to love others (John 13:34–35),² they have loved and cared for others as Jesus did, establishing schools, hospitals, halfway homes, orphanages, poverty programmes, and disaster relief projects across the world. It is a testimony to the indelible imprint Jesus has had


43

(and continues to have) on the world. Who would have thought that a simple carpenter-turned-preacher-teacher from an obscure village two millennia ago would be able to motivate and mobilise change across history on such a grand scale?

1 Taken from a sermon delivered on 11 July 1926 at a Los Angeles Convention. It has since been adapted several times and is often titled “One Solitary Life”; this is one of the popular versions circulated. Dr James Allan Francis, “Arise Sir Knight!”, The Real Jesus and Other Sermons (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1926), 123–124, https://www.anointedlinks.com/one_solitary_life_original.html.

2 “So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other. Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples” ( John 13:34–35).

It is a testimony to the indelible

imprint Jesus has had (and continues

to have) on the world.


In this discourse, we have journeyed through popular assumptions about truth and religion, sifted through the principles and problems

of relativism, opinions, and beliefs, and tried to navigate the muddied waters of the relationship between knowledge and opinion. Hopefully, we have gained a deeper appreciation for why it is not up to us to construct our own truths, no matter how good our intentions are. It is our responsibility to discover what is true, and it helps to begin our quest with Jesus, as his claims to divinity are the easiest to prove wrong, if untrue.

eight

Now What?

45


If you carefully investigate the tapestry of truth woven together by history and revelation, and are open to experiencing the life that Jesus promised, you will find that “Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have God’s Son does not have life” (1 John 5:12).

Jesus invites you to “Come to me” (Matthew 11:28). It is a plea to those of us locked within the finitude of time and space and yet longing for eternity to relate to the One who is without beginning or end.

Will you come to Jesus?

FIGURING OUT THE TRUTH BEHIND THE BELIEF ARE all gods the...

Documents

Transcript of FIGURING OUT THE TRUTH BEHIND THE BELIEF ARE all gods the...