The Death of Buddha VS. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ
INTRODUCTION
Is there a single transcendent God? Is Jesus Christ God incarnate? Is there a way to break free from the cycle of life and death? Buddhism answers the first two questions with a resounding no, yet it deifies its own founder Gautama in the process. According to Buddhism there is a way to break free from the cycle of this world, by reaching enlightenment. For the follower of Jesus Christ the way to find release from the cycle of sin and death is by accepting the work of the cross and looking forward to the promise of resurrection. How can these themes and concepts be used to in sharing the gospel with a Buddhist? The story of the Buddha’s death provides this opportunity.
THE DEATH OF THE BUDDHA
As the Buddha lay dying he gave a sort of “final will” to his followers. In anticipation of his passing he relayed final instructions for the roles of elders and disciples within the monastic community.[1] With his dying breath, he said “Work out your salvation with diligence!”[2]
According to the account, as the Buddha died he passed through the four stages of meditation and upon passing through the final stage he fell dead.[3] Interestingly, upon his death a scene ensued that closely resembled the death of Christ. At the moment of death a great earthquake occurred, causing great fear and awe.[4] Also, strangely enough, when asked what should be done with the remains of the Buddha, Ananda declared that his body should receive the treatment due of a king of kings.[5] Again, bringing to mind the similar title found within the Biblical text used to describe Jesus Christ.[6]
According to the text the body of the Buddha was wrapped in 500 layers of linen and then burned.[7] Despite the flames the story recounts that there were no ashes that remained from the skin, joint fluid, and organs of the Buddha. Instead, all that remained were the bones of the “Blessed One.”[8] What must be clarified is that according to Buddhist tradition there is not a single Buddha; instead there are countless numbers of Buddha’s.[9] However, the world may only have one Buddha at a time and for this time Gautama is the Buddha.[10] Regardless of his death, as long as the message of Gautama provides the answer for mankind he remains the Buddha for this present age.[11]
The result of this theological position is a deifying of Gautama. In a very real sense he has become for the Buddhist, God. This is despite the fact the Gautama had no desire to start a religion nor to become a god-like figure. In fact, Buddhism not only fails to embrace the idea of a supreme, transcendent being, but it goes so far as to deny the very existence of any such being.[12] In response to what has developed through the mythical approach to Buddhist thought what can a Christian do to bridge the gap between the Buddhist and the Gospel?
THE CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
According to the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzen Gyatso, Jesus Christ was not God incarnate (as this would violate Buddhist theology) but instead was one of the Bodhisattvas.[13] This makes Christ a figure to be honored and venerated but not to be seen as divine in the Biblical sense of the word. How then do we make case for the Christian gospel in light of the text previously examined? One way would be to discuss the witness of the resurrection.
When Gautama Buddha died his followers observed his body’s destruction. They saw his flesh consumed by flames and to this day they have made no claim of any type of resurrection. On the contrary, Jesus Christ’ followers watched Him being crucified, witnessed his burial and encountered Him after His resurrection. One way to demonstrate the superiority of Christ and His claims to being God incarnate is by presenting the historicity of the resurrection event.
In his teaching Gautama Buddha never claimed to be God, Christ however, did make explicit claims to deity. At His trial when asked if He was the Messiah and the Son of God, Christ responded “I am.”[14] In the Gospel of John, when confronted by a mob of Jews, Christ declared the crux of Hebrew theology, the Shema, was referring to Him.[15] By saying that “before Abraham was I AM,” He is calling to mind the words of Jehovah to Moses in the book of Exodus.[16] This theme is repeated throughout John’s Gospel.[17] To deny Christ claimed to be God, that is the supreme and transcendent cause of all things, would be academically dishonest. All that remains is to see if Christ’s claims can be validated by the resurrection.
The claims of Christ to literally be God in the flesh would be meaningless unless it was confirmed by something miraculous. The miracles of Christ were numerous; however, the greatest miracle is that of the resurrection.[18] When examined objectively the proof for the resurrection mounts into an indisputable force. Using Gary Habermas’ minimal facts approach, a case for the resurrection can be presented using just three points.
First, the empty tomb represents a great strength to the resurrection case. The disciples would not have believed Christ was resurrected had his body still lain in a tomb. Further, the Jewish authorities could have crushed the Christian movement by producing the bodily remains of Jesus Christ. The historical evidence for Christ’s burial and the ensuing empty tomb is nearly free from any type of scholarly contestation.[19]
Second, the disciples claimed to have seen the risen Christ. The result of these encounters radically transformed the disciples from fearful cowards to preachers boldly proclaiming that Christ was raised.[20] This does not make Christ’s resurrection a historical fact, however, it does mean that these Jewish men (who had no prior concept of a pre-judgment bodily resurrection) truly believed that what they saw across forty days was the risen Christ. The fact that they were willing to suffer and die for what they preached means that they truly believed what they were preaching. After all, who willingly dies for something they know to be a lie?
Lastly, skeptics were transformed into believers. Saul of Tarsus, the great persecutor of the church, experienced an encounter with the risen Christ that resulted in his conversion. What would cause an enemy of the church to change so incredibly that he would became the writer of the majority of the New Testament? Clearly, only something he believed was a genuine encounter with the risen Lord would cause such a transformation. Further, the unbelieving half-brother of Jesus Christ, James, experienced something that moved him from disbelief to becoming the head of the church at Jerusalem. What can account for the attestation of disbelieving enemies, besides historical reality?[21]
In looking to the historical fact of the resurrection in contrast to the then and now dead Gautama Buddha, the reader is left with a dichotomy. The crux of this dichotomy is simple; Christ claimed to be the personal and supreme God of the universe in the flesh while Gautama did not. Christ gave his resurrection and post resurrection appearances as proof of His deity. All miraculous stories regarding the Buddha on the contrary, fall under what Madasmy Thirumalai calls the mythical Buddha.[22] While Christian is grounded in first century, historical fact, Buddhism is based upon myth, and developed legends. Most Buddhist are aware of this fact and would even go so far as to claim that a religion based upon pure thought rather than historicity is superior.[23] For the Christian this can cause great difficulty in sharing the gospel with a Buddhist. However, what can be accomplished is showing that Christianity has grown based upon historical realities and has remained largely the same theologically for nearly 2,000 years. Buddhism, however, has meandered theologically, absorbing and reshaping the folk-religious beliefs of its adherents. In light of this and the fact that Christ is raised while Gautama remains in the grave, opens the door for a very strong apologetic.
CONCLUSION
Despite the many similarities within the moral and ethical sayings of Gautama Buddha and Jesus Christ, the two completely part theologically.[24]Christ claimed to be God in the flesh, Buddha did not. Christ validated the claims of his message through His resurrection from the dead. Buddha’s disciples watched as his body was consumed by flames and made no claim of a resurrection of any sort. While some, including the 14th Dalai Lama, claim the Christ should hold an elevated position within Buddhist theology the question for the Buddhist should be this; does not the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead show him to be greater than Gautama Buddha who experienced no such validation? In order for the Buddhist to remain devoted in their faith they must be able to adequately answer the problem of the resurrection.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Corduan, Winfried. Neighboring Faiths. Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1998.
Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith. Wheaton, IL.: Crossway Books, 1994.
Habermas, Gary & Licona, Michael. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI.: Kregel Publications,2004.
Tennent, Timothy. Christianity at the Religious Roundtable. Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Books, 2002.
Thirumalai, Madasamy. Sharing your Faith with a Buddhist. Minneapolis, MN.: Harvest House, 2003.
Van Voorst, Robert. Anthology of World Scriptures. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2006.
[1] Van Voorst, Robert. Anthology of World Scriptures: Mahaparinibbana Sutta 6.1-10 (Belmont, CA: Thomson & Wadsworth, 2006).
[4] Ibid, 6.33. When Christ died on the cross a earthquake ensued that tore the veil in the Temple and opened the tombs of Old Testament saints. The sky was darkened and a great fear fell upon those in the region. (Matthew 27:50-53).
[7] Mahaparinibbana Sutta 6.45-48
[9] Madasamy Thirumalai. Sharing You Faith with a Buddhist (Minneapolis, MN: Harvest House, 2003), 47.
[12] Timothy Tennent. Christianity at the Religious Roundtable (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2002), 101. What happens instead is the folk-level development of spiritual hierarchies that resemble polytheism.
[13] In the Mahayana tradition a Bodhisattvas are “Buddha’s in the making.” One achieves this role by putting off his own spiritual advancement for the right to stay behind to help members of humanity achieve inner peace.
[18] See for instance when Christ healed the paralytic in Mark 2:1-12. He not only healed but He also forgave sins which only God could do. Cf. John 10:24-39.
[19] William Lane Craig. Reasonable Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994), 273.
[20] Gary Habermas & Michael Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 50.
[23] Winfried Corduan. Neighboring Faiths (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 246.
[24] See for instance; Dhammapada 10:1 and Luke 6:31. It should be pointed out that such similarities are not shocking in the least. After all, how many different ways can moral and ethical truths be stated?
It seems that three of your key insights Dayton are:
1)The laws of logic undeniable and essential to showing contrasting viewpoints.
2)The fact that history is knowable and historical knowledgable is vital to faith
3)The uniqueness of Christ and Christianity lies in the accessibility and testability of the first century data (i.e. the eyewitness testimony of the NT)
It seems that a little Schaeffer would be good medicine for an honest seeker of this persuasion.
“Opening the roof” and pushing that individual to the logical conclusions of their worldview. The laws of non-contradiction and excluded middle are still crucial to showing that statements such as “Ir cannot speak a word of English” are self-defeating and also all the other “one hand clapping” insights provided by Guatama and his followers.
Also as you have rightly pointed out. The uniqueness of our faith is that the miracles and truth claims of our faith are public vs. private and accessible to all. You seem to suggest that the Buddhist must be shown in their own faith that total mystery and the absence of any historical knowledgable causes any worldview to collapse. One is left to wonder whether one’s faith and the source material was produced by someone who rolled to many doobies or whether it is testimony of informed eyewitnesses to actual events. Evidentialism is still alive and well.
Great article….I haven’t seen this contrast made in a while.
Bryan Creech
JustME,
I’m sorry if you thought I seemed upset. I was not! I tend to throw out a ton of material when I respond and sometimes in the midst of “being on a roll” I can use strong terminology.
I appreciate your demeanor and kind words!
I will respond again in the same format as before…
1. You said, “You said it was not the author of a book that makes it scripture like Islam or Mormonism… well, isn’t God supposed to be the author of the Bible? I believe it was Peter who said that all scripture is God breathed. So, if it’s not the author, then what does make something scripture?”
What I meant was this…Islam’s text only has authority because its prophet wrote it! Same goes with mormonism. Christianity is different BECAUSE we believe God inspired it. For more info on cannonicity please see my article on this site. I was actually Paul who said all Scripture is God breathed…Peter affirmed Paul’’s works were Scripture.
2. You said, “I only want to leave with this closing question if that’s ok… in the last book of the New Testament (Revelations) Jesus says that he is coming soon, since you infer that you are pretty good with Greek, you will know that the Greek translated to “soon” here actually does mean soon, as in pretty darn quick. It doesn’t mean, like I’ve heard some argue, “quick, as in something like quick or fast like an arrow leaves a bow”… it means what it says, soon. That sort of goes along with Paul telling those with wives to live as though they had none because the end was near. Well, it’s been around 2000 years now…. I’m sure you get my point. And the argument that with God a thousand years is like a day and a day a thousand years doesn’t work with this statement. Why? Simply because Jesus was talking to a man, and, Jesus having been a man (God-man) he knows full well how man reckons time. Besides, again, the Greek means soon, like if I told you at 4 in the morning the sun would be rising soon, that kind of soon.”
The sun rising is a false analogy. It does not require prophetic capabilities. In fact, the Greek term used by Christ DOES mean to “come without warning.” It is the same Greek term used to describe the manner in which a thief comes. i.e….you dont see it coming and it happens without warning (well, usually!). It can mean a near future event but the context of Christ’s admonish in Matthew is clearly a future event because He tells His listeners that AFTER they see “all these things come to pass” (He then lists a number of things that have yet to pass) He will come. Also, the thousand years is as to a day with the Lord…does work here…because Peter (also a man speaking to men) said it. This is especially true depending upon how one understands the age of the earth. The Bible does not give an age of the earth nor humanity. If one uses scientific reckoning there is a 40-60,000 year window in which human life can exist on earth. The Bible states that the advent of Christ brought about the concluding age. That is fine with me. The “last days” as it were (the 2000 years since Christ) are but a microcosm of time compared to the entirety of human existence.
Further, Paul DID NOT tell anyone who was married to live as though they did not have spouses. He told UNMARRIED men to not get married unless they must because they can better serve the Lord without family ties.
Last, the final book of the N.T. is not “revelations” it is Revelation (singular) and that is important because it was the final Revelation of Jesus Christ (the original title to the book). And yes…yet again…the Greek term used by Christ is undeniably referencing the suddenness of His return rather than the “nearness” of His return.
3. You said, “Also you say that if I reject the Bible’s claims, then I must reject all other historical documents (especially the older ones). I must disagree. The simple reason is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If I told you I could grow wings and fly, you would want proof wouldn’t you?”
If the proof came in the form of eyewitness testimony from those who would go to grizzly deaths for their claims…I would say that constitutes extraordinary evidence.
Further, the crossing of the Rubicon and other ancient events are all extraordinary and are not attested by eyewitness testimony, early manuscripts, or martyrdom but yet we believe them. Again, you are applying a double standard.
Again, thank you for your kind words and good luck on your search for truth.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend or upset you. I was just bringing up a few points that seemed odd to me.
But perhaps you could also clarify a couple of things in your reply.
You said it was not the author of a book that makes it scripture like Islam or Mormonism… well, isn’t God supposed to be the author of the Bible? I believe it was Peter who said that all scripture is God breathed. So, if it’s not the author, then what does make something scripture?
Also you say that if I reject the Bible’s claims, then I must reject all other historical documents (especially the older ones). I must disagree. The simple reason is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If I told you I could grow wings and fly, you would want proof wouldn’t you?
I only want to leave with this closing question if that’s ok… in the last book of the New Testament (Revelations) Jesus says that he is coming soon, since you infer that you are pretty good with Greek, you will know that the Greek translated to “soon” here actually does mean soon, as in pretty darn quick. It doesn’t mean, like I’ve heard some argue, “quick, as in something like quick or fast like an arrow leaves a bow”… it means what it says, soon. That sort of goes along with Paul telling those with wives to live as though they had none because the end was near. Well, it’s been around 2000 years now…. I’m sure you get my point. And the argument that with God a thousand years is like a day and a day a thousand years doesn’t work with this statement. Why? Simply because Jesus was talking to a man, and, Jesus having been a man (God-man) he knows full well how man reckons time. Besides, again, the Greek means soon, like if I told you at 4 in the morning the sun would be rising soon, that kind of soon.
But as you so kindly said, my understanding is very skewed and incomplete so it probably means nothing.
Anyway, good job on the site and as I said in my first post it’s obvious you’ve put a lot of work into it, so congrats on that. There is no way we are going to agree, but I honestly didn’t mean to upset you. So, apologies for that.
Take care and best wishes!
“Just Me,” thanks for taking the time to read and respond.
I will respond to you as briefly as I can.
1. You said, “Scholars, at least the honest ones, will tell you that there is no way to know who wrote the four Gospels. They are called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but that doesn’t mean they wrote them… and isn’t it odd that those are Anglicized names?”
The honest ones eh? I need to make a few observations. First, what scholars do you consider honest? The simple fact is that Mark was written by Mark! The text states as much. We know who Mark was. In fact, his method of writing is typical of a biographical piece written in the middle of the first century A.D. Further, he uses a method that was common place in secular biographical writings at the time known as inclusio. This method, using the narrative, revealed the authors source of information. In this case, Peter. We have independent sources and wide spread use of this book attributed to Mark, the scribe and a follower of Peter, dating to the latter half of the first century. So far as Matthew goes…even the most critical scholars attribute Matthew to the apostle Matthew and date it to approx. 60 A.D. This is clear because neither Mark, Matthew, or Luke for that matter, include the destruction of the Temple. They WOULD HAVE INCLUDED this as clear evidence for Christ’s deity and prophetic powers had this already taken place (the Temple was destroyed 70 A.D.) if they were writing pure propaganda. So if we date the Greek version of Matthew to approx. 60 and take into account the fact that it is believed it was predated by a Hebrew or Aramaic version by a few years (lets be conservative and say three) and that even critical scholars of the Jesus Seminar believe Mark came at least 15 years prior to Matthew, then you have Mark circulating in the late 30’s to early 40’s. It is circulating in the Jerusalem church region where people would know whether or not what was being written is in accordance with the oral tradition spoken by the twelve in Jerusalem. So, to summarize critical scholar Martin Hengel, the authorship and early tradition of Mark and Matthew is beyond contestation on any evidential basis.
Likewise, Luke is universally accepted as being the product of Luke the companion of Paul and to being (as far as any historian can check) 100% historically accurate!
In regards to John. The text states that the disciple John (the beloved disciple) wrote the Gospel. For 1800 years no one questioned this until scholars began to question whether or not the Greek word graphein means to write or to dictate. A few scholars then began to teach that this term used of the author of the Gospel means that John did not write the Gospel but someone else wrote it in his honor. Well, even a Greek novice would know this is without warrant. There is no example throughout Koina Greek of graphein meaning ANYTHING but “to write” or “to dictate.” To this day there is still ZERO evidence to support this conclusion that was first proposed by naturalists who had an a priori philosophical bent against all things supernatural. Further, we have the witness of John’s own disciples and those who studied under John (many of whom died brutal deaths for their witness) who all attest that John wrote this Gospel.
So to say we do not know who wrote the Gospels, bucks up against not only common sense but also studied scholarship. Further, it is NOT the author that makes a book Scripture ( as in Islam or Mormonism). You have misunderstood the doctrine of inspiration.
For further info please see Richard Bauckham’s “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.” Be forewarned however that the text assumes one has at least a remedial knowledge of Greek.
Second, Anglicized names? Really? Well the nearly 1.2 million pages of text we have (many manuscripts dating to the late first century to early second century) do not reflect any of your proposed Anglicizing. Further, this is a mute point. Read a critical text of the New Testament Greek and you will see you worry will dissipate. Your charge reflects a lack of understanding of first century Palestine. Most Jew had both Hebrew names and Greek names. However, these are far from Anglicized names. Further, this would be the same as objecting to the authorship of an English book translated into Spanish because the author in English was Peter and yet through a form of “Latinicizing” the author’s name is Pedro. Therefore, the authorship must be in doubt.
2. You said, “Also, these “proofs” and “eye witnesses” are just people in a story. Does that make the story true? Is your Bible true just because you say it is? Did you see any of it happen? (a sort of rhetorical question because of course you weren’t around 2000 yrs ago, nonetheless, you have no REAL proof other than the stories in your Bible). What exactly is it in your Bible that makes it true and every other religion’s texts false? In truth, empirical truth, nothing. It’s simply a matter of what you believe. It’s really that simple.”
Was I there? No! Do I have evidence? Yes! Again, 1.2 pages of text support the manuscript tradition. This is FAR MORE than ANY and I repeat ANY ancient document. If you accept the validity of ANY historical event prior to say….the American Revolution based upon historical accounts then you cannot DISMISS our manuscript tradition. Further, there is ZERO historical methodological basis upon which to dismiss the claims of our manuscript tradition. If you do, you must dismiss ALL and I repeat ALL ancient history. The Bible has been independently attested unto by history, archaeology, and science. You demand for historiography is BEYOND what ANY ancient source can meet. To apply this standard is to blatantly apply a double standard. The application of a double standard would disqualify one from a scored debate.
3. You Said, “My point is, it’s just words in a book. There is no “proof”. It’s faith, belief… not empirical or even forensic proof. You say that those people would not have died for what they knew to be a lie? What actual proof, empirical proof please, do you have that they actually did? None. Again, just your Bible. Words in a book.”
If you really believe this statement then you are betraying your lack of study in first century through second century Greek history. There are numerous independent, secular sources attesting to their deaths. Further, there are writings from those who studied under these disciples who recount their deaths and then died brutal deaths themselves. Please see the works of Phillip Schaff, J.N.D Kelly…etc…Again, this statement does not reflect critical scholarly consensus back rather flies in the face of it! Even the Jesus Seminar recognizes the martyrdom of the apostles! Something happened to these men. Something they died for, period.
4. You said, “And I’m not trying to attack with these next questions… just honestly curious. Christians claim God is One (in three persons). Jesus prayed to God… how does God pray to God? If Jesus is God, how come he doesn’t know the exact date and time of the end “Not the angels, nor even the son, only the father”? If Jesus is God, why did he reprimand the person who called him “Good Teacher” saying “Why do you call me good? No one is good save God alone”? If Jesus willingly went to the cross, why did he pray so hard to God that he wouldn’t have to? (Let this cup pass from me)”
You are misunderstanding the doctrine of the incarnation. In the context, Jesus prayed while in His human nature. This does not defy the Trinity but supports it. Jesus in His humanity does not know. Context Context Context!!! Jesus did not rebuff those calling Him good! The clear context is Him asserting His DEITY by challenging the speaker that to claim such a thing would be to call Him God. Christ did not rebuff this. Christ, AGAIN in His humanity (context!), prayed that if there be any other way He would do it, yet He STILL went to the cross. Read Philippians.
5. You said, “Please don’t take this as an attack, rather I am just pointing out a few things that have always bothered me, like if God has preordained everything and the saved, why do people like you keep trying to get others to convert? If God wants them to convert, they will. Your Bible even says as much “No man comes to me unless the Father calls him”. So if you really believe that, then that only leaves the reason that you simply want everyone to believe as you do.”
Who said God preordained everything? Take Scripture in context. While it says that the Father “draws” them (the Greek notion is “tugging at them”) it also says in Jn 3:16 “Whosoever will…” It also says in Scripture numerous times “Call upon the name of the Lord…you will be Saved.” God calls all men but gives all men the freedom to reject. How could men really love God if He did not give the freedom to reject? Why create a race of slaves who are forced to love? Forced love is not love!
Thanks for writing! You understanding of scholarship, Scripture…etc…is very skewed and incomplete. Please continue your search for truth. God Bless!
I admire your faith and it is obvious that you have put a lot of work into this site. However, I must point out that I find it odd that you over and over again point to “eye witnesses” and “scholars”. So, let’s take a look at that. Scholars, at least the honest ones, will tell you that there is no way to know who wrote the four Gospels. They are called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but that doesn’t mean they wrote them… and isn’t it odd that those are Anglicized names?
Also, these “proofs” and “eye witnesses” are just people in a story. Does that make the story true? Is your Bible true just because you say it is? Did you see any of it happen? (a sort of rhetorical question because of course you weren’t around 2000 yrs ago, nonetheless, you have no REAL proof other than the stories in your Bible). What exactly is it in your Bible that makes it true and every other religion’s texts false? In truth, empirical truth, nothing. It’s simply a matter of what you believe. It’s really that simple.
Do you believe everything in the Tanakh (what you call the Old Testament)? Do you believe the Koran? Why or why not? Because you have made up your mind what you already believe (or you have been conditioned from childhood to believe).
My point is, it’s just words in a book. There is no “proof”. It’s faith, belief… not empirical or even forensic proof. You say that those people would not have died for what they knew to be a lie? What actual proof, empirical proof please, do you have that they actually did? None. Again, just your Bible. Words in a book.
And I’m not trying to attack with these next questions… just honestly curious. Christians claim God is One (in three persons). Jesus prayed to God… how does God pray to God? If Jesus is God, how come he doesn’t know the exact date and time of the end “Not the angels, nor even the son, only the father”? If Jesus is God, why did he reprimand the person who called him “Good Teacher” saying “Why do you call me good? No one is good save God alone”? If Jesus willingly went to the cross, why did he pray so hard to God that he wouldn’t have to? (Let this cup pass from me)
Please don’t take this as an attack, rather I am just pointing out a few things that have always bothered me, like if God has preordained everything and the saved, why do people like you keep trying to get others to convert? If God wants them to convert, they will. Your Bible even says as much “No man comes to me unless the Father calls him”. So if you really believe that, then that only leaves the reason that you simply want everyone to believe as you do.
Thanks for your time.
Keepitreal 50,
First, thanks for reading and taking the time to post!
Because of the nature of your post and the length of its claims I will only respond to a few things you said.
1. You said “Nichiren Daishonin who lived in 12th century Japan and is considered the Original Buddha”
Now I ask, how can this be? Buddhism existed for no less than 1800 years PRIOR to Nichiren! Therefore, he CAN NOT be the original Buddha for his “religion” or “system” existed for nearly 2,000 years prior to his birth!!!!
2. You said, “What sin has a baby committed to be born with disease or deformation? If there has been no previous life, how does Christianity explain this?”
Our Scriptures are very clear. Sin is inherited. It is an absence of the good God intended for mankind. All men are born with a sin nature.
I must ask you, how does Buddhism account for this? If you say Karma then I must ask again, how? For if Karma is an impersonal system how does it make seemingly intelligent decisions? How does it weigh ones actions against another and then decide into what form a person should be born in the next life. The problem with the Karmic system is that it must posit some form of higher intelligence that is both conscious and personal. If there is no bookkeeper then how do you explain the seemingly “fair” and intentional decision of Karma?
3. You said, “no Buddha has ever been killed.”
Really? In what Buddhist tradition? I have volumes in my personal library on the history of Buddhism that lists numerous Buddhas who have been killed! I challenge you to read Noble Ross Reat’s timeless synopsis of Buddhist history!!!!!!
4. You said, “How could Jesus be killed if he were the son of god is my question. Great good is the cause for the effect of Great Protection.”
First, again I must ask, if good brings protection (according to the Karmic system) then who is doing the protecting? Without a personal God you are living the principle in the hands of a blind system!
Second, Jesus was not killed. He said, “No man takes my life from me, I lay it down!” The Buddha, as you read in the article above, died! Jesus, after laying His life down, was resurrected!!!! Physically! Again, what speaks more of favor? Death or resurrection?
5. You said, “A true religion must have: Documentary proof – Theoretical proof – Actual proof, which all coincides with each other to form a COMPLETE TEACHING OR PHILOSOPHY with no loose ends.”
Lets look at this for a moment.
Buddhism- Documentary proof? no! No historical record of your founder.
Christianity- Documentary proof? Yes! Clear historical record of our founder, His
actions, His death, burial, and resurrection!
Buddhism- Theoretical proof? No! Do Buddhist’s theoretically display proof of Buddhism’s truth by their good actions…etc? Sure! Yet, when delving a little further we find this looses its weight as proof for Buddhism. Again your actions, your ethics, are grounded in gaining release from the cycle of this world. Therefore, they are selfish. Which, if I am not mistaken runs counter to what one would hope the supposedly blind Karmic system would find.
Christianity - Theoretical proof? Yes! We serve our God, who is personal and has the power and ability to judge our actions. We have selfless love not to reach some release (for that was earned by Christ) but in appreciation for what our Lord has accomplished on our behalf. Our ethics and actions are grounded in absolutes rather than illusion and impersonal systems.
Buddhism- Actual proof? No! What can you provide that shows and backing to the original Buddha’s claims (the real Buddha of c.a. 600 b.c.)? Nothing!
Christianity – Actual proof? Yes! The blood of the original saints! The disciples willingly went to their brutal deaths for what they preached and experienced in the risen Christ. If it were not true and they knew it was not true, then why go to such horrible lengths to conceal a lie? Who dies for a lie that they know to be a lie?
Buddhism - loose ends? YES! I have harped on the Karmic system because I need go no further. That is a loose end you must tie up or your system collapses! I need go no further although I could!
Christianity – loose ends? No! While there may be loose hermeneutics applies to Christianity that creates a variety of doctrinal positions, as far as philosophy and history are concerned, Christianity is sound and resolute!
I will not take the time to respond to the Bodhisattva claim but I must say, search my site for my article on why (based on the Lotus Sutra) boddhisattvas do not and cannot exist. They cannot meet all four rules necessary to be a bodhisattva!
Based on your own criteria my friend, Buddhism fails.
Please consider the claims of Christ before it is too late.