Chapter Six:  Jesus’ Claim  

1 

The next task is to examine the contents of these documents, to see if they present Jesus as the self-disclosure of the noumenon needed by both metaphysics and ethics.  There are three titles applied to him.  The first is “messiah”, which comes from the Hebrew word meaning “anointed”, and equivalent with “Christ” in Greek.  Those anointed in the Old Testament were priests (Lev 4-6, 15), kinds (2 Sam 19; 1 Sam 16, 24; Lam 4), and prophets (Ps 105, 1 Kings 19). 

It was prophesied in early Jewish history that a kind would arise, reign over Israel with justice and integrity, and rule forever with God’s blessing.  The first prophecy is Jacob’s blessing of Judah in Gen 49:  “The scepter shall not pass from Judah, nor the staff from his descendents, so long as tribute is brought to him and the obedience of the nations is his.”  The second is Hannah’s prophecy in 1 Sam 2:  “Those that stand against the Lord will be terrified when the High God thunders out of heaven.  The Lord is judge even to the ends of the earth, he will give strength to his kind and raise high the head of his anointed prince.”  And the third is Nathan’s prophecy to King David: 

The Lord has told you that he would build up your roil house.  When your life ends and you rest with your forefathers, I will set up one of your family, one of your own children, to succeed you and I will establish his kingdom.  It is he who shall build a house in honor of my name, and I will establish his royal throne forever.  I will be his father, and he shall be my son.  When he does wrong, I will punish him as any father might, and not spare the rod.  My love will never be withdrawn from him as I withdrew it from Saul, whom I removed from your path.  Your family shall be established and your kingdom shall stand for all time in my sight, and your throne shall be established forever.  [1] 

The prophets warn that Israel will be ruined, and then restored.  Amos says: 

Yet I will not wipe out the family of Jacob root and branch, says the Lord.  No; I will give my orders, I will shake Israel to and fro through all the nations as a sieve is shaken to and fro and not one pebble falls to the ground.  They shall die by the sword, all the sinners of my people, who say, “Thou wilt not let disaster come near us or overtake us.”  On that day I will restore David’s fallen house; I will repair its gaping walls and restore its ruins; I will rebuild it as it was long ago, that they may possess what is left of Edom and all the nations who were once named mine.  This is the very word of the Lord, who will do this. [2] 

Moses explains to the children of Israel that a prophet will arise like himself.  He speaks for the Lord:  “I will raise up for them a prophet like you, one of their own race, and I will put my words into his mouth.  He shall convey all my commands to them, and if anyone does not listen to the words which he will speak in my name I will require satisfaction from him.” (Deut 18) 

The prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Micah describe the coming king: 

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father (of eternity), Prince of Peace.  Of the increase of His government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from that latter time forth, even for evermore.  (Isaiah 9, Amplified Bible) 

Then a shoot shall grow from the stock of Jesse, and a branch shall spring from his roots.  The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, a spirit of wisdom and understanding, a spirit of counsel and power, a spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.  (Isaiah 11)  [3] 

In those days, at that time, I will make a righteous Branch of David spring up; he shall maintain law and justice in the land.  (Jer 33) 

Rejoice, rejoice, daughter of Zion, shout aloud, daughter of Jerusalem; for see, your king is coming to you, his cause won, his victory gained, humble and mounted on an ass, on a foal, the young of a she-ass.  He shall banish chariots from Ephraim and war-horses from Jerusalem; the warrior’s bow shall be banished.  He shall speak peaceably to every nation, and his rule shall extend from sea to sea, from the river to the ends of the earth.  (Zech 9) 

But you, Bethlehem in Ephratha, small as you are to be among Judah’s clans, out of you shall come forth a governor for Israel, one whose roots are far back in the past, in days gone by.  Therefore only so long as a woman is in labor shall he give up Israel; and then those that survive of his race shall join their brethren.  He shall appear and be their shepherd in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.  And they shall continue, for now his greatness shall reach to the ends of the earth; and he shall be a man of peace.  (Mic 5) 

In the literature that developed between the Old and New Testament, the role of the Messiah is further defined.  This is important, because it leads one to an understanding of the expectations current in Jesus’ day.  It shows a human king of David’s line, sent to overthrow the Gentiles, expel the sinners, and restore the dominion of Israel in a theocratic kingdom.  The works that deal with this in a major way are the Psalm of Solomon, Fourth Ezra, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Assumption of Moses. [4] 

2 

The second title applied to Jesus is the “Son of Man.”  This is an interesting phenomenon because the application is exclusively made by Jesus himself.  The term is used in three major places in the Old Testament.  The first is in Ezekiel, where the prophet is called the Son of Man ninety times, and it is used to merely mean “man.” [5]  

The second is in Daniel 7, where the term can be interpreted as both “man” and a heavenly figure (the Ancient of Days). [6]  Psalms 8 and 80 are related to this concept.  The third place is in the non-canonical Enoch.  The “Similitudes”, while different from the rest of Enoch, and not found in the Qumran diggings, contain the concept – it is similar to the one used in Daniel. [7] 

Taking the three major uses of Son of Man, we can see that it can apply to a mere man, or to a heavenly, apocalyptic figure. [7a]  The use – in context – must determine the nature of our interpretation. 

3 

One group contemporaneous with Jesus took the notion of Messiah very seriously.  They were called the “Zealots.” [8]  The term can mean a brigand, or bandit (the word “sicarri” meaning “dagger-men”); there are stronger and weaker senses of the term.  The two “original” zealots, the prototypes, were Phinehas, son of Aaron (Num 25, Ps 106), and Elijah (1 Kings 19, consumed with “zeal for the Lord”). 

The Zealots were determined to bring the kingdom by force, looking for temporal political power through military victory; they were concerned with the overthrow of the Romans and the establishment of Jewish might.  The predecessors of the first century Zealots were Mattathias (father of Judas Maccabaeus), Hezekiah (resistance leader executed by Herod in 47 B.C.), and Judas the Galilean (who led a revolt in 6 A.D.), possibly the son of Hezekiah).   

After Jesus, Eleazer led a revolt in 54 A.D. under Nero’s reign; Menahem led a revolt against Rome in 66 A.D.; an Egyptian (with whom Paul was confused; Acts 21) led four thousand sicarii into the wilderness; and Simon Bar-Kokhba led the famous rebellion against Rome in 132 A.D. 

4 

Another group of Jesus’ time had an interesting view of the Messiah.  This group is the Essenes.  The Essenes, like the Pharisees, sprang from the Hasidim. [9]  Some of them participated in the revolt against Rome, and therefore have zealot affinities or sympathies. [10]  Hippolytus, the early Christian writer, tells us that there were four types of Essenes, [11] therefore the Community of Qumran, an Essene-type group that we know the most about, is only one of many types. 

The Qumran Community (known through the Dead Sea Scrolls) expected two messiah-figures - a Zadok priest and a king – both to appear at the end time.  Other than this, their expectations were quite similar to the others of their heritage, as embodied in the Old Testament and inter-testament literature. [12] 

The focal point of this community was the “Teacher of Righteousness”, who was apparently its founder.  Although many have compared him with Jesus, and the community with the Church, these comparisons are outweighed by the dissimilarities present.  In contrasting the Teacher with Jesus, we find that  

All of the important qualities attributed to Jesus (as we shall see) are missing in Dead Sea literature. 

5 

Jesus applies the term Christ, or Messiah, to himself, and accepts the title from others.  He says there is “one master”, “one Christ” (Mat 23), referring to himself.  Peter’s famous confession is that he is the Christ; he applies the term to himself at his trial before the High Priest; before Pilate he is called the “King of the Jews.”  His entrance into Jerusalem is definitely messianic. 

But this term is not applied strictly in the sense commonly understood by the first-century Jews, for Jesus says that his kingdom is “not of this world”, when challenged by Pilate.  He refuses his coronation at his entrance of Jerusalem, and rejects the attempt to crown him by force.  He doesn’t get embroiled in political matters.  Even his accepting a zealot (Simon the Zealot) as a disciple doesn’t show Zealot sympathies, for this is a “reformed Zealot”, set in contrast to the other disciples (if they were all Zealots, this term wouldn’t have been used to describe just one member), just as Matthew is portrayed as a “reformed tax collector.” 

We can see that the mere concept “messiah” alone is not sufficient to describe Jesus, for he takes the concept and re-interprets it.  It fits the picture only insofar as the new understanding of the term prevails over common contemporary expectations.  This is why he was so slow to proclaim himself to be the Messiah, for the term had to be redefined. 

Jesus’ favorite term in self-designation was the “Son of Man.”  He used it over fifty unique times in the gospels (excluding parallels) ‘19] and no one else uses it to describe him.  It has been noted that this must be a real Aramaic term, for it is awkward in Greek – there is no reason for thinking it to be a later interpolation upon Jesus’ self-consciousness. [20]  It can be used as a self-designation [21] rather than applied to another person (in other words, a way of saying “I” or “myself”).  The term, however, is ambiguous in and of itself, for it can apply to three types of figures in the gospels:  an earthly figure, a suffering figure, and an apocalyptic figure. [22]  Therefore, of course, it must be interpreted in context, in light of the other titles used to describe Jesus, and in light of the circumstances surrounding each application. 

6 

The term that is the most startling, and for our examination most significant, is “Son of God.”  This concept is not common in the Hebrew pre-Christian literature, and where it is used it bears a variety of meanings.  It can mean a creature:  Adam (Lk 3), Israel (Ex 4), everyone (Mal 2, Acts 17), all Christians (Jn 3, Rom 8 and 19, Gal 3 and 4), the angels (Gen, Job).  It can be the messiah; David is called the son of God in 2 Sam 7. 

There is another, non-Jewish, concept of “Son of God”; this comes from the Greek and Roman civilizations.  There are a variety of myths about dying and rising gods (Osiris, Adonis, Attis, Ball Bel-Barduck, and Dionysius) [23]  

There are myths about god/men (Apollo, the son of Zeus, who became “incarnate” as a punishment for murder; Heracles, son of Zeus, who became a god by his good deeds) [24] 

Various kings have been considered to be gods or god-like:  

Let’s take a look at this concept of “divine.”  First, it shows a polytheistic “divinity”, not anything near the unique self-disclosure of the noumenon.  Second, it comes fairly cheap, for the Roman Senate could vote it into being.  Third, dying and rising gods were not historical persons, but rather archetypal vegetation/fertility gods.  Therefore we see that to “partake in the divine” is not a new concept; it flows throughout the Greek and Roman worlds.  But that is a far throw from the revelation of the noumenon of our study. 

Also, the Hebrew notion of “Son of God” can be ambiguous, because of its application to creatures, all men, all Christians, the Messiah, and the angels.  Therefore, like the other terms, it must be interpreted in context, in light of the surrounding circumstances and titles. 

7 

Jesus accepts the application of this title in the New Testament.  When he asks the disciples “Who do men say I am?” they reply “John the Baptist, Elijah, one of the prophets.”  When he asks them “Who do you say I am?” Peter replies with his famous confessions:  “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” (Mat 16, Mk 8)  Jesus doesn’t rebuke him for this, but accepts the title, and then comments on it. 

A second instance is when Thomas falls at Jesus’ feet (after the Resurrection) and exclaims “My Lord and my God!” (Jn 20).  Jesus also accepts this worship and title. 

A third instance is when Jesus appears before the High Priest, on trial for his life (Mk 14, others).  The witnesses haven’t been able to get their stories straight, and therefore the High Priest tries to make Jesus convict himself with the question – under oath – “Are you the Messiah (Christ), the Son of the Blessed (God)?”  This is Jesus’ time to correct any false understanding of his nature; but he replies “I am.” [26]  His statement is correctly understood by those sitting in judgment at the trial, for the High Priest exclaims “You have heard the blasphemy for yourself”, and they send him to the cross.  In his reply, he adds the claim to be the Son of Man.   

Therefore we see – at the crucial point in his life – the application of all three titles to himself:  Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man.  The claim to be the Messiah is obviously not blasphemy, [27] but the claim to be the Son of God, as understood by his hearers, was.  Therefore, of course, it wasn’t understood in the more common senses mentioned above, but in a much stronger sense. 

8 

It has been repeatedly contended that the mere application of “Son of God” to Jesus means merely that he is God’s son like the rest of us are his offspring.  We have seen above that – yes, indeed – the mere term is ambiguous in that it can apply to a wide variety of people and instances (the children of Israel, the Messiah, all people, etc.).  Therefore, the only way to interpret the particular application in Jesus’ case is to view it in context, that is, within the framework of all the other titles and actions attributed to Jesus.  We have already seen the three titles (Messiah, Son of Man, Son of God) used to describe him, and seen that they are in themselves inadequate, for the latter two are ambiguous and the former is re-defined by Jesus himself for application.  However, when we look at the whole context of these titles, we will see that his nature is very specifically defined; and that nature will be found to be precisely that self-disclosure of the noumenon which is the subject of our inquiry. 

First, Jesus is pre-existent, born of one human parent and of God.  His birth (recorded in the first chapter of Matthew and third chapter of Luke) is unique in historical annals, to be paralleled in overt mythological stories.  His very nature is different from the ordinary man.  God is quite literally his father, for there is no human father participating in the event; yet Jesus is still a real, flesh-and-bone man, born of a woman.  Whether this account is accurate or not, for the moment, is not for us to consider; we are simply “painting the picture” set forth in the New Testament documents; we will judge this picture in further chapters. 

John, at the outset of his account, describes Jesus’ pre-existent nature very carefully, pointing out that he is indeed “God made man.” 

At the beginning God expressed himself.  That personal expression, that word was with God and was God, and he existed with God from the beginning.  All creation took place through him, and none took place without him.  In him appeared life and this life as the light of mankind.  The light still shines in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out. … 

That was the true light, which shines upon every man, which was now coming into the world.  He came into the world – the world he had created – and the world failed to recognize him.  He came into his own world, and his own people would not accept him.  Yet wherever men did accept him he gave them the power to become sons of God.  These were the men who truly believed in him, and their birth depended not on natural descent nor on any physical impulse or plan of man, but on God. 

So the word of God became a human being and lived among us.  We saw his glory (the glory like that of a father’s only son), full of grace and truth.  And it was about him that John stood up and testified, exclaiming:  “Here is the one I was speaking about when I said that although he would come after me he would always be in front of me; for he existed before I was born!”  … 

It is true that no one has ever seen God at any time.  Yet the divine and only Son, who lives in the closest intimacy with the Father, has made him known.  (John 1:1-18) 

Note that John reiterates the impossibility of “seeing God”, or knowing the noumenon as it is in himself.  Therefore it must be expressed as “God-for-us”, or the self-disclosure of the noumenon:  “The Son has made him known.”  Further, note that this “Son” is not the same as “sons of God”, who are the believers, but is a unique pre-existent being identified with God. 

9 

The relationship between the Father and the Son, lest there be any mistake, is clearly defined by Jesus.  First, he claims to be the perfect expression of the Father:  to view Jesus is equivalent to viewing God. 

“I myself am the way”, replied Jesus, “and the truth and the life.  No one approaches the Father except through me.  If you had known who I am, you would have known my Father.  From now on, you do know him and you have seen him.”  Then Philip said to him, “Show us the Father, Lord, and we shall be satisfied.”  “Have I been so long with you”, returned Jesus, “without your really knowing me, Philip?  The man who has seen me has seen the Father.” (Jn 14:6-9) 

“I have shown your self to the men whom you gave me from the world. … I have made your self known to them and I will continue to do so that the love which you have had for me may be in their hearts – and that I may be there also.” (Jn 17:5-6, 26) 

Some people try to escape the implications of the above by saying that there are really many manifestations of God, many expressions, and Jesus is only one of them.  Jesus’ reply to this is rather clear, “No one has ever been up to Heaven except the Son of Man who came down from Heaven.  … For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him should not be lost, and should have eternal life.” (Jn 3:13-16)  And “the man who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him. … For just as the Father has life in himself, so by the Father’s gift, the Son also has life in himself.” (Jn 5:20-7) 

And lest we think this idea is an invention of John, Luke’s testimony also concurs:  “Everything has been put in my hands by my Father; and nobody knows who the Son is except the Father.  Nobody knows who the Father is except the Son – and the man to whom the Son chooses to reveal.”  (Luke 10:22) 

Jesus is clearly pictured here as the unique self-revelation of the personal, infinite God of the Jewish faith. [28] 

Another question that is sometimes raised is:  “I see that Jesus claims to be this revelation; but what exactly does he mean by “God.”  Does it mean a universal principle, a pantheistic divinity, the “divine spark” in every man, or what?”  The answer to this is that “God” is defined by clearly and fairly comprehensively in the entire Old Testament, the Hebrew scriptures.  One must read about Yahweh, the personal God of the Jews, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who acts in history and loves his people, to understand the incredible nature of Jesus’ claim.   

Whenever Jesus talks about God, or the Father, the Old Testament deity is the one to whom he is referring.  And it is the strongest biblical principle within the Old Testament that there is only one God, who alone should be worshipped and served.  Any other worship is clearly idolatry, and is judged as worthy of death.  That is why the New Testament authors are moving onto holy ground in applying various Old Testament passages – written concerning Yahweh – to Jesus himself.  For instance, John the Baptist (Matt 3) and Jesus (Matt 11) both apply the prophecy of Malachi (Mal 3) that there will come a messenger to “prepare the way” for the Lord himself, to their current situation!  Similarly, the Hebrew Scriptures make quite plain that God alone is the Savior of His people (Is 43, 47; Hos 13).  Paul agrees with this in talking to Timothy (1 Tim 4).  Yet from the date of the epistles on, Jesus is referred to as “Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”! (2 Tim 1)  

Another striking example is the application of Isaiah’s prophecy:  “There is no god but me; there is no god other than I, victorious and able to save.  Look to me and be saved, you peoples from all corners of the earth; for I am God, there is no other.  By my life I have sworn, I have given a promise of victory, a promise that will not be broken, that to me every knee shall bend and by me every tongue shall swear.” (Is 45:21-3)  Paul is evidently aware of the significance of this passage, for he applies it (Rom 14) in explaining the need for judgment of all men.  Yet he turns right around and applies it to Jesus (Phil 2):  “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow … every tongue confess, “Jesus Christ is Lord”, to the glory of God the Father.” 

10 

The above examples could be multiplied almost indefinitely; the claims are throughout the New Testament.  Another example of the startling nature of Jesus’ claim is that he claims to have never sinned.  He says “Which one of you can convict me of sin?” and “I always do what is pleasing to the Father.” (Jn 8:46 and 8:29)  How many prophets or holy men can say this?  How many of us?  If Jesus really said this, then he is either totally blind to his own sin, or is a perfect man.  Similarly, he claims to be able to forgive the sins of people who have sinned against other people (not him), or against God himself.  The height of arrogance! 

… a group of people arrived to see him, bringing with them a paralytic whom four of them were carrying.  And when they found it was impossible to get near him because of the crowd, they removed the tiles from the roof over Jesus’ head and let down the paralytic’s bed through the opening.  And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man who was paralysed, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”  But some of the scribes were sitting there silently asking themselves, “Why does this man talk such blasphemy?  Who can forgive sins but God alone?”  Jesus realized instantly what they were thinking, and said to them, “Why must you argue like this in your minds?  Which do you suppose is easier – to say to a paralysed man, “Your sins are forgiven”, or “Get up, pick up your bed and walk”?  But to prove to you that the Son of Man has full authority to forgive sins on earthy, I say to you” – and here he spoke to the paralytic – “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.”  At once the man sprang to his feet, picked up his bed and walked off in full view of them all.  Everyone was amazed, praised God and said, “We have never seen anything like this before.” (Mark 2) 

Furthermore, while only God is to be worshipped, which Jesus says out of his own lips, (Luke 4) he accepts the worship of others!  A leper worships him (Mat 8), a blind man worships him (Jn 9), his disciples worship him (Mt 14), the Canaanite woman worships him (Mt 15), his disciples worship him again! (Luke 24)  Is this acceptable?  Surely not for a mere human.  The clear proof is that Peter (Acts 10) was worshipped, and he refused it violently, saying that he was a mere man; similarly, the angel in Revelation 19, when John (who should have known better) falls at his feet in worship, refuses to accept it, saying “I am a servant like you.”  No mere creature should accept worship, yet we see Jesus doing this time and time again.  And Hebrews says, “Let all the angels worship him.” 

11 

The picture is rounded out as Paul explains to the Christians the various implications of God’s revelation in human form. 

Now Christ is the visible expression of the invisible God.  He was born before creation began, for it was through him that everything was made, whether heavenly or earthly, seen or unseen.  Through him, and for him, also, were created power and dominion, ownership and authority.  In fact, all things were created through, and for, him.  He is both the first principle and the upholding principle of the whole scheme of creation.  And now he is the head of the Body which is the Church.  He is the Beginning, the first to be born from the dead, which gives pre-eminence over all things.  It was in him that the full nature of God chose to live, and through him God planned to reconcile to his own person everything on earth and everything in Heaven, making peace by virtue of Christ’s death on the cross.  (Col 1:15-20) 

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.  (Col 2:9-10, NIV) 

For he, who had always been God by nature, did not cling to his privileges as God’s equal, but stripped himself of every advantage by consenting to be a slave by nature and being born a man.  And, plainly seen as a human being, he humbled himself by living a life of utter obedience, to the point of death, and the death he died was the death of a common criminal.  (Phil 2:5-9) 

The crowning point is perhaps the passage in which Jesus is being challenged by his contemporaries:  “Who are you?”  They debate for awhile, and then Jesus says something that sends them to find rocks to throw at him.  He says, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” (Jn 10)  He pronounces the holy name of Yahweh (“I am that I am”) found in Moses’ encounter with Yahweh on the mountain:  and applies it to himself!  Surely his listeners got the point.  But do we? 

Certainly it is not for us to blame anybody who should find that first wild whisper merely impious and insane.  On the contrary, stumbling on that rock of scandal is the first step.  Stark staring incredulity is a far more loyal tribute to that truth than a modernist metaphysic that would make it out merely a matter of degree.  It were better to rend out robes with a great cry against blasphemy, like Caiaphas in the judgment, or to lay hold of the man as a maniac possessed of devils like the kinsmen and the crowd, rather than to stand stupidly debating fine shades of pantheism in the presence of so catastrophic a claim.  There is more of the wisdom that is one with surprise in any simple person, full of the sensitiveness of simplicity, who should expect the grass to wither and the birds to drop dead out of the air, when a strolling carpenter’s apprentice said calmly, and almost carelessly, like one looking over his shoulder:  “Before Abraham was, I am.” [29] 

12 

Now that we have looked at Jesus’ claim to be the self-disclosure of the noumenon, it is only fair to consider other claims of the same status.  The difficulty is in finding them.  Many people consider the founders of major religions to be in the same category as Jesus.  The surprising thing is not that they followers of Jesus put him above other leaders, but the founders themselves make no claim to being this self-disclosure we have sought.  The reason for this is two-fold:  (1) Those founders that are pantheistic believe that everything is God in some sense, i.e. their term “God” means something very different from the God of the Old Testament spoken of by Jesus (as personal, Creator of the universe, etc.)  Therefore, to be God in their sense means little.  (2) The founders who preach a personal God don’t claim to be that God in the flesh.  Rather, they are intensely aware of their status as “prophets”, but just as aware of their status as creatures.  Surely the Hebrew prophets, for an example, considered it blasphemy for a man to think he was God. 

Edwin Yamauchi, in his succinct pamphlet Jesus, Zoroaster, Buddha, Socrates, Mohammed, deals clearly with each founder, comparing just these claims, their notion of God, their deaths, etc.  From this pamphlet, written by one of the world’s leading scholars, we will simply summarize his findings concerning Zoroaster, Buddha, and Mohammed, considered to be probably the three major figures in world religion.  As the findings, concerning their possibilities as self-disclosures of the noumenon, as not very encouraging, we will leave deeper studies of their claims to a later project.  The remainder of this paper will be concerned with evaluating Jesus’ claim, for it is clearly made, and his importance ha been such that he has left a permanent mark on the whole world. 

First, Zoroaster, 628-551 B.C., is known through the various materials extant concerning him.  The best of these are the Gathas, Avesta, also various ninth century texts.  To supplement these are various contemporary allusions, plus the epic, Shah Namah by Firdausi (c 1000 A.D.). [30]  Zoroaster taught the monotheistic worship of Ahura Mazda, the creator of two competing good/evil spirits.  Dualism as a Zoroastrian system seems to have developed later, around 226-652 A.D. in the Sassanian period.  Zoroaster did not claim to be the redeemer himself. [31] 

Second, Buddha, 563-484 B.C., is known to us through first century B.C. documents (the earliest there are) found in Ceylon, in the Pali language, called “Tipitaka”:  Samyutta Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, and Anguttara Nikaya. [32]  The Buddhist Annual of Ceylon shows that Buddhism doesn’t really concern itself with God, but with man.  Buddhism is “that religion which without starting with a God leads man to a stage where God’s help is not necessary.” [33]  And the notion of the person of Buddha seems to have changed from an enlightened man to a super-human being as time went on. [34] 

Third, the prophet Mohamed, a thousand years later (570-632 A.D.), is known from four courses:   

  1. The Quran, collected 644-655 A.D. by caliph Uthman
  2. The Hadith
  3. Oral tradition collected by Al-Bukhari (who chose seven thousand of 600,000 items)
  4. The first life of Mohamed, called Sirat Ar-Rasul, by Ibn Hisham. [35]

In these writings and oral tradition, Mohammed is presented as no more than a mortal messenger, [36] himself standing in need of forgiveness. [37] 

The three comparable major religious figures simply do not make the claims that Jesus – according to the documents – made.  We need to study these claims, the documents, and their implications using the best standards available to us.  The documents have already passed criticism as far as textual integrity goes.  We know that the original documents, at least in the major points they make, have been preserved accurately for us.  Second, we have seen that, within these documents, Jesus clearly and unequivocally made startling claims concerning himself:  he states that he is indeed the self-disclosure of the noumenon, the unique incarnation of the personal, infinite God, that might provide us with an understanding of reality (the quest of metaphysics), and a clear guide to what is really right and wrong (the task of ethics). 

We must utilize the available legal and historiographic standards outlined above in dealing with the task.  A judgment must be made.  In the next chapter we will clarify the decision, and look at all of the logical alternatives that are implied in the claim.  And eventually, we will try to determine which alternative best fits the facts – in order to decide “Is Jesus really that revelation of the noumenon?”