Is Jesus' Story Unique?

[leftrightleftrightleft]

There was a man named Sai Baba of Shirdi (not to be confused with Sathya Sai Baba). He was a ascetic who lived in the 19th century in India.

-He was an opponent of religious orthodoxy just as Jesus opposed Pharisaical orthodoxy.
-He claimed that "I am ever living to help and guide all who come to me, who surrender to me, and who seek refuge in me".
-He said "If you cast your burden on me, I shall surely bear it."
-He performed many miracles including healing incurable diseases, exorcism, mind-reading and controlling the weather
-When he cooked, it was claimed that he could feed hundreds or thousands of people using just one pot of food
-He died and supposedly rose from the dead 3 days later
-Everything that is known about him was chronicled during his life or in the 10 years after his death but no writings directly from him have been found
-He is claimed to be the incarnation of God, although within a Hindu context.
-He said that people should surrender their egoism at God's feet and that God is supreme and His devotees should trust and follow Him.
-His disciples have spread his message all over the world and his followers are growing in number
-He claimed to be the spiritual guru and redeemer of mankind sent to transform us into "awakened" creatures
-He preached on patience, purity, compassion, love, surrender, and impermanence with a focus on a "world to come".

How do Christian's respond to the non-uniqueness of Christ? This man lived in the 19th century in a small village in India but he moved around the region in a similar fashion to Jesus. We have pictures of him and excellent second-hand accounts of him so all the historicity arguments about the Gospels fail with regard to Sai Baba (we even have photographs of him!).

Was Sai Baba a fraud? Were his followers making up stories?

Why not put your faith in him?

Differences between him and Jesus are notable:
-he didn't die by crucifixion
-he spoke within a Hindu cultural context whereas Jesus spoke within a Jewish cultural context; this lead to differences such as the concept of "sin" being replaced by the concept of "brokenness" or "need for awakening". However the difference in cultural context cannot possibly be used to refute him; just because he used different words does not mean he meant different things. After all, all the words Jesus spoke were different than what you use..because he was speaking Aramaic.

Link

 

[hedrick]

I don't think Christians need to reject all other religious figures. There are similarities between Jesus' teachings and Buddhism as well. Jesus' unique role was to establish the new covenant of Jer 31:31, in part through his death and resurrection. This specific role wasn't given to anyone else.

 

[Faulty]

Did he have a Daniel chapter 9 prophecy indicating he would arrive in Jerusalem as King 487 years to the exact day after the order came to rebuild the Temple?

Or perhaps he had hundreds of other prophecies given about him, hundreds and thousands of years before he arrived, that foretold the place, time, and manner of his birth, childhood, adulthood, ministry, family, friends, death, resurrection, and fulfilled them all specifically and precisely?

Unless you can start at that point in a comparison, there's nothing similar.

 

[Publius]

There was a man named Sai Baba of Shirdi (not to be confused with Sathya Sai Baba). He was a ascetic who lived in the 19th century in India.

-He was an opponent of religious orthodoxy just as Jesus opposed Pharisaical orthodoxy.
-He claimed that "I am ever living to help and guide all who come to me, who surrender to me, and who seek refuge in me".
-He said "If you cast your burden on me, I shall surely bear it."
-He performed many miracles including healing incurable diseases, exorcism, mind-reading and controlling the weather
-When he cooked, it was claimed that he could feed hundreds or thousands of people using just one pot of food
-He died and supposedly rose from the dead 3 days later
-Everything that is known about him was chronicled during his life or in the 10 years after his death but no writings directly from him have been found
-He is claimed to be the incarnation of God, although within a Hindu context.
-He said that people should surrender their egoism at God's feet and that God is supreme and His devotees should trust and follow Him.
-His disciples have spread his message all over the world and his followers are growing in number
-He claimed to be the spiritual guru and redeemer of mankind sent to transform us into "awakened" creatures
-He preached on patience, purity, compassion, love, surrender, and impermanence with a focus on a "world to come".

How do Christian's respond to the non-uniqueness of Christ?

Your first error is in claiming that Jesus opposed the Pharisee's religious orthodoxy. Not true. He commended them for their orthodoxy several times. What He opposed was their adding works and traditions to orthodoxy.

Your second error is in the use of the words "claimed" and "supposedly". Either he did these things or he did not. The fact that you use the words "claimed" and "supposedly" show that even you don't know that he really did these things. You would certainly think that something that happened so relatively recently in history would still be known.

Your third error is in categorizing Christ as a "guru" who came to "transform us into awakened creatures". That's not even remotely Biblical.

I think it's interesting that one of the biggest criticisms we hear from non-Christians is that the Bible authors crafted their account of the life of Jesus to match the prophecies about Jesus to make it appear as though He fulfilled them when, according to them, He really didn't. And now, you're saying just the opposite: that because something happened, something else that happened must not really be true.

Honestly, I don't see how any of these things make Jesus' life or ministry any less unique.

Why not put your faith in him?

Because he isn't the one who called me. He isn't the one who saved me.

Differences between him and Jesus are notable:
-he didn't die by crucifixion
-he spoke within a Hindu cultural context whereas Jesus spoke within a Jewish cultural context; this lead to differences such as the concept of "sin" being replaced by the concept of "brokenness" or "need for awakening". However the difference in cultural context cannot possibly be used to refute him; just because he used different words does not mean he meant different things.

Actually, "sin" and "brokeness" are radically different concepts. Sin is a legal term meaning to transgress God's laws. "Brokenness" means something is incapable of functioning properly.

A God who punishes transgressions of the law is just. A god who punishes someone for being "broken" is cruel.

Your biggest error is in assuming that Christianity is based on competing historical facts, when it is not.

Christianity refers to a those people who, through no merit or works of their own, were called by God, saved by God, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, sanctified by God, all for the purpose of glorifying God and growing in the grace and knowledge of Christ.

It isn't merely a matter of "my historical figure can beat up your historical figure".

But for Christ to literally and historically die and rise from the dead (which is also my belief) I would guess that is probably unique to Christ.

"...so, other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Your first error is in claiming that Jesus opposed the Pharisee's religious orthodoxy. Not true. He commended them for their orthodoxy several times. What He opposed was their adding works and traditions to orthodoxy.

Pharisaical orthodoxy was what Jesus opposed because their orthodoxy had added works and tradition and self-righteousness to God's commands. They had strayed from the path and so he rebuked their version of orthodoxy. Jesus did oppose their orthodoxy because they had twisted it. Can you point to a location in the Bible where he commended their version of what they thought orthodoxy to be?

Your second error is in the use of the words "claimed" and "supposedly". Either he did these things or he did not. The fact that you use the words "claimed" and "supposedly" show that even you don't know that he really did these things. You would certainly think that something that happened so relatively recently in history would still be known.

Of course I don't know. It is true that either he did these things or he did not. Just as Jesus either did those things or he did not. But none of us really "know". Its just a matter of faith in given claims.

Your third error is in categorizing Christ as a "guru" who came to "transform us into awakened creatures". That's not even remotely Biblical.

If a Hindu had visited Galilee in the 1st century, that's how he would have described Christ. Guru is essentially the same thing as Rabbi. A Christian on this forum has a quote in his sig that says something about Christ transforming our souls. Transformation is a prominent idea throughout Christianity. "Filled with the Holy Spirit" would likely be described by the visiting Hindu as "awakened." Its not Biblical because the Bible is written and translated by Western, English-speaking authors. Perhaps you don't like this language because it is foreign to you but the language is still conveying the same idea except in a different cultural context.

I think it's interesting that one of the biggest criticisms we hear from non-Christians is that the Bible authors crafted their account of the life of Jesus to match the prophecies about Jesus to make it appear as though He fulfilled them when, according to them, He really didn't. And now, you're saying just the opposite: that because something happened, something else that happened must not really be true.

There you've hit the nail on the head. I call it the Fallacy of Non-Uniqueness. If two people tell you two stories that cannot both be true, its a fallacy to assume that both are then automatically false.

However, despite it being a fallacy, it does force you to evaluate both stories to see if their true. If you have already decided that one is true then you are not giving the other story a proper critical analysis. Essentially, you should be evaluating Sai Baba's claims to see if they hold up to scrutiny. Perhaps some things about Sai Baba's ministry are true but that doesn't mean they necessarily contradict Christ, does it?

Because he isn't the one who called me. He isn't the one who saved me.

Sai Baba's followers would say the same of Jesus.

Actually, "sin" and "brokeness" are radically different concepts. Sin is a legal term meaning to transgress God's laws. "Brokenness" means something is incapable of functioning properly.

A God who punishes transgressions of the law is just. A god who punishes someone for being "broken" is cruel.

Do a Google search on "sin and brokenness". It seems the two ideas are most intertwined.

The two terms "he heals us of our brokenness" and "he forgives us of our sins" have very similar manifest meanings. You can't have one without the other.

Your biggest error is in assuming that Christianity is based on competing historical facts, when it is not.

True, but both Sai Baba and Jesus Christ claim that they are the path to God. Both of them cannot be true. So either they are both false or one is false.

In this sense, they are competing. One must be true and one must be false OR they are both false. The fallacy of non-uniqueness is to say: They are competing therefore they are both false. However, if you do a some legitimate searching and research into Sai Baba and you find his story to be more grounded in reality than Jesus, then you must be forced to consider the idea that Jesus' claims are false.

Christianity refers to a those people who, through no merit or works of their own, were called by God, saved by God, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, sanctified by God, all for the purpose of glorifying God and growing in the grace and knowledge of Christ.

It isn't merely a matter of "my historical figure can beat up your historical figure".

But if Jesus is not who he says he is then the above paragraph is useless.

If Sai Baba is who he says he is, then you're putting your faith in the wrong dude.

 

[ElijahW]

Why not put your faith in him?
Link

There is not no point in worshiping Sai. Jesus isn’t worshiped because he is seen like a celebrity but because there is a plan in us recognizing him as the King of Kings. His sacrifice was to establish a spiritual authority for the people to unify around, instead of the earthly rulers that were dividing mankind up. You need to make sure you understand the reason Jesus is being made king, other than he impressed people with some sayings and miracles.

 

[ebia]

Is he still alive?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

There is not no point in worshiping Sai. Jesus isn’t worshiped because he is seen like a celebrity but because there is a plan in us recognizing him as the King of Kings. His sacrifice was to establish a spiritual authority for the people to unify around, instead of the earthly rulers that were dividing mankind up. You need to make sure you understand the reason Jesus is being made king, other than he impressed people with some sayings and miracles.

Sai claimed that people only came to God through him. This seems to be a significant reason to accept him. If you believe in him, then Jesus' claims are false and Jesus' claim that no one gets to the Father except through Jesus is false. The claims are mutually exclusive. Sai Baba was not "just" a celebrity any more than Jesus was. Both claimed resurrection. Both claimed to be the path to God.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Is he still alive?

Some followers claim that he lives on.

"It is said that though Shri Sai Baba is not alive in flesh and blood, he still lives and blesses his devotees where ever they may be. Many devotees have experienced such blessings and are a testament to this fact." Link

 

[iLogos]

I think what really separates the Christian story from others is the honesty!

I mean really, if you were going to make this stuff up would you make your lead players look like cowards and sissies?

All the apostles ran and hid like little girls, it was the women who stood by Jesus in the end!

You would not make that up!

You would say stuff like, "but the apostles all tried to stop the solders and were willing to die for Jesus rather then let them take him", no instead they ran! It's this honestly that I love about the NT.

There are many examples but I think you get my jest.

 

[ebia]

Some followers claim that he lives on.

"It is said that though Shri Sai Baba is not alive in flesh and blood, he still lives and blesses his devotees where ever they may be. Many devotees have experienced such blessings and are a testament to this fact." Link

Well that's not resurrection.

 

[ElijahW]

Sai claimed that people only came to God through him. This seems to be a significant reason to accept him. If you believe in him, then Jesus' claims are false and Jesus' claim that no one gets to the Father except through Jesus is false. The claims are mutually exclusive. Sai Baba was not "just" a celebrity any more than Jesus was. Both claimed resurrection. Both claimed to be the path to God.

To comment on that I would need to see the reasoning behind that claim and how he saw himself as a part of the salvation of mankind. What is the explanation for how God is found exclusively thru him? I'm not sure if he wanted to be recognized as a spiritual king as part of his salvation plan like Jesus' or something different.

 

[razeontherock]

Sai claimed that people only came to God through him. This seems to be a significant reason to accept him. If you believe in him, then Jesus' claims are false and Jesus' claim that no one gets to the Father except through Jesus is false. The claims are mutually exclusive.

Either that or the claims aren't as simple as you just represented

 

[razeontherock]

I think what really separates the Christian story from others is the honesty!

I mean really, if you were going to make this stuff up would you make your lead players look like cowards and sissies?

All the apostles ran and hid like little girls, it was the women who stood by Jesus in the end!

You would not make that up!

You would say stuff like, "but the apostles all tried to stop the solders and were willing to die for Jesus rather then let them take him", no instead they ran! It's this honestly that I love about the NT.

There are many examples but I think you get my jest.

Great post, really. Your last word ruins the whole thing! (What you're looking for is "gist")

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Well that's not resurrection.

"It is said that though Jesus is not alive in flesh and blood, he still lives and blesses Christians where ever they may be. Many Christians have experienced such blessings and are a testament to this fact."

As a Christian, do you agree with the above statement?

Jesus is not alive in flesh and blood anymore, he only lives on in Spirit. I think that is obvious.

In a similar way, Sai Baba's followers believe the Sai died in the flesh, resurrected in the flesh. But, just like Jesus, that does not mean his fleshly being is immortal forever. Jesus is not walking around in the flesh, nor is Sai. Both are claimed to be living on in Spirit.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I think what really separates the Christian story from others is the honesty!

I mean really, if you were going to make this stuff up would you make your lead players look like cowards and sissies?

All the apostles ran and hid like little girls, it was the women who stood by Jesus in the end!

You would not make that up!

You would say stuff like, "but the apostles all tried to stop the solders and were willing to die for Jesus rather then let them take him", no instead they ran! It's this honestly that I love about the NT.

There are many examples but I think you get my jest.

Have you thoroughly researched the life and teachings of Sai Baba? Perhaps the stories of his life also seem very honest.

 

[ebia]

"It is said that though Jesus is not alive in flesh and blood, he still lives and blesses Christians where ever they may be. Many Christians have experienced such blessings and are a testament to this fact."

As a Christian, do you agree with the above statement?

Jesus is not alive in flesh and blood anymore, he only lives on in Spirit. I think that is obvious.

In a similar way, Sai Baba's followers believe the Sai died in the flesh, resurrected in the flesh. But, just like Jesus, that does not mean his fleshly being is immortal forever. Jesus is not walking around in the flesh, nor is Sai. Both are claimed to be living on in Spirit.

Jesus is alive in physical flesh and blood - that's what resurrection is.


Do you have a reference to this guy's supposed "resurrection", because it didn't seem to get a mention on his Wikipedia entry?

 

[iLogos]

Great post, really. Your last word ruins the whole thing! (What you're looking for is "gist")

lol, yea, thx

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Jesus is alive in physical flesh and blood - that's what resurrection is.

Where is he? Where is his physical flesh and blood? Show me the blood cells and the skin cells.

From my understanding, Christians believe that he resurrected in the flesh after 3 days and then ascended into heaven at some point after that. But he is not still physically walking around on Earth.

Do you have a reference to this guy's supposed "resurrection", because it didn't seem to get a mention on his Wikipedia entry?

Shirdi SaiBaba

Essentially this describes the "resurrection". He was medically considered dead for three days: no pulse, no breathing. Then he came back to life. Its not the same as Jesus' resurrection. As I say in my OP, it doesn't occur by crucifixion.

There are other differences too. Sai Baba "resurrected" in the 1890s but then continued living until his second physical "death" in 1918 when he died and "gave up his body so that his Spirit may be resurrected in the hearts of [his followers]." Link

The language used to describe it is remarkably similar. People "accept the risen Jesus into their hearts" in a similar fashion.Link

Jesus is viewed as "spiritually alive" but no longer "physically alive".

 

[razeontherock]

Jesus is viewed as "spiritually alive" but no longer "physically alive".

FALSE. I'm surprised you don't recognize that! THIS is what our Faith is based on.