Absolute Truth/Exclusivity

I am proud to belong to a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance. We believe not only in universal toleration but we accept all religions as true. -

 Vivekananda on Truth in All Religions in Welcoming Participants to the World Parliament of Religions

September 1, 1893

In his book "Gandhi on Pluralism and Communalism" By P. L. John Panicker Page 48

In the harmony and unity of religions, Vivekananda rejects both the exclusive truth claim of any religion and the claim of the superiority of any religion over the others. But when we studied his speeches and writings one can find a dominant second view, which is incompatible with the idea of equality of all religions. This view is the absoluteness of Vedanta.

The Absoluteness of Vedanta

Advaita the Fulfilment of All Religions

According to the second view of Vivekananda, all religions are not considered equally true. Vivekananda places various religions in different grades, according to their growth in spirituality. At the top he places Vedantic in its Advaita form. Advaita, he considers, is the final and absolute religion, and no religion can go beyond it. It is not one religion among other religions, but “religion itself in its most universal and deepest significance.” Hence Vivekananda approached religions from the standpoint of an advaitin. - By P. L. John Panicker

Had I lived in Palestine, in the days of Jesus of Nazareth, I would have washed his feet, not with my tears, but with my heart's blood! - Vivekananda

You may have encountered and engaged these claims, “Christianity is intolerant!” and “Christianity is exclusive!” The other religions are allegedly tolerant and hence, inclusive. Is it so? No! Every major religion claims exclusivity.

Within the theme of “Religious Diversity,” three relevant theories should be recognized.1 The “Pluralist theory” believes that one religion is as truthful as another. The “Exclusivist theory” considers only one religion as uniquely valuable – the sole bearer of truth. The “Inclusivist theory” finds merit with both the pluralistic and exclusivistic religions by arguing that while the exclusivistic religion could hold most value, the others still have religious value, for there may be partial truth in the other religions.

A religion proclaims exclusivity if it absolutely contradicts an essential doctrine (Godhead, Sin, Salvation etc.) of another religion. Since mutually contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense (Law of noncontradiction), the either-or logic (not the both-and) should be applied while determining the truth. When two religions mutually contradict each other, the truth remains with either religion A or religion B (both religion A and religion B cannot be true, in this instance). Therefore, only one religion could be true, but the fact remains that both religions claim exclusivity, for both these religions claim to bear the truth.

Every major religion in the world, either implicitly or explicitly, claims exclusivity. Ravi Zacharias states, “The truth is that every major religion in the world claims exclusivity, and every major religion in the world has a point of exclusion…”2 Therefore, a preliminary study of the claims of exclusivity of the major world religions is in order.

Exclusivity of Hinduism

Hinduism, one of the world’s oldest religious systems, claims to be inclusive.3 But it is not so.

Hinduism excludes other religions based on its core doctrines. Consider the doctrine of God in Hinduism. Brahman, the absolute God of Hinduism, is a mysterious being.4

Although Brahman is one God, he manifests in innumerable forms, “Hinduism is unique because it is essentially a monotheistic faith which acknowledges polytheism as reflective of the diversity in God’s creation. God is one, but also many. He manifests Himself in innumerable forms and shapes.”5 But the God of Christianity does not manifest Himself in innumerable forms. Hence, Hinduism should exclude Christianity or Islam on the basis of the Godhead. The same holds true for doctrines such as karma and reincarnation, which absolutely contradict Christianity and other religions.

While Hinduism claims inclusivity, it excludes the exclusivists, “Hinduism does not recognize claims of exclusivity or a clergy. Anyone who claims to by [sic] the exclusive possessor of spiritual truth or the only ‘method’ of reaching God finds no place in Hinduism; a method or a message can only be one among many…Krishna, speaking as God in the Bhagavad-Gita, says, “All paths lead to me”, and also those who worship other gods with devotion worship me….Hinduism does not force itself on others through proselytisation…”6

Existentially, Hinduism contradicts its own claims for inclusivity. If Hinduism is truly inclusive, it would not proselytize. But Hinduism, in India – the country of its origin, is actively converting people. The recent Ghar Wapsi (Home Coming) program in India is a classic case in point. Ghar Wapsi is, “a series of religious conversion activities, facilitated by Indian Hindu organizations Vishva Hindu Parishad and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, to facilitate conversion of non-Hindus to Hinduism”7

Furthermore, Ravi Zacharias, who was born into a Hindu household, asserts the exclusivity of Hinduism, “Hinduism, for example, is often represented as being the most tolerant and accepting of other faiths. That is just not true. All Hindus believe in two fundamental, uncompromising doctrines—the Law of Karma, and the belief in reincarnation.”8

Therefore it is very reasonable to conclude that Hinduism is not an inclusive faith, since it claims exclusivity.

Exclusivity of Buddhism

Rejection of Hinduism led to the birth of Buddhism, says Ravi Zacharias, “Buddhism was born out of the rejection of two other very dogmatic claims of Hinduism. Buddha rejected the authority of the vedas and the caste system of Hinduism.”9

There are several irreconcilable differences between Buddhism and Historic Christianity. Two such differences are found below:

First, Buddhism rejects the notion of a personal God, which is in stark contrast to Christianity, “There is no almighty God in Buddhism. There is no one to hand out rewards or punishments on a supposedly Judgement Day.”10 However, Buddha is worshipped by some Buddhists.

Second, Buddhism excludes other religions that believe in sin, for there is no such thing as sin in Buddhism, “Buddhists do not regard man as sinful by nature of ‘in rebellion against god’. Every human being is a person of great worth who has within himself a vast store of good as well as evil habits…According to Buddhism, there is no such thing as sin as explained by other religions.”11

There are many such points of exclusions in Buddhism. Hence, Buddhism is also an exclusive religion.

Exclusivity of Islam

Islam, being strictly monotheistic, rejects every contradicting worldview (Trinitarian monotheism, polytheism, pantheism etc.). Moreover, Islam, by virtue of rejecting Christ’s divinity, excludes Christianity.

Islam is also a legalistic system. A Muslim must earn his salvation by holding to the “Articles of Faith” (belief in God, Angels, Scripture, Prophets, and Last Days) and following the “Pillars of Faith” (The Creed, Prayer, Almsgiving, Fasting, and Hajj Pilgrimage). This is in absolute contrast to Christianity, which believes that man is not saved by his good deeds, but is saved by the grace of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore, Islam stakes claim to exclusivity by excluding the contradicting religions.

Exclusivity of Judaism

It may be an effortless task to prove Judaism’s claim to exclusivity vis-à-vis other religions that are not named Christianity. Judaism and Christianity have much in common. Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, in their work “Handbook of Today’s Religions,” state the fundamental similarity, “It is to historic Judaism, the Judaism of the Old Testament, that Christianity traces its roots. Christianity does not supplant Old Testament Judaism, it is the fruition of Old Testament Judaism. One cannot hold to the Bible, Old and New Testaments, as God’s one divine revelation without also recognizing and honoring the place God has given historic Judaism.”12

Given this relationship between Judaism and Christianity, the exclusivity of Judaism would be clearly emphasized if Judaism excludes Christianity. A couple of points of exclusion are highlighted below:

First, Judaism rejects the Christian belief that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, “While Christianity recognizes that the promise of a personal, spiritual savior is the core of biblical revelation, Judaism has long vacillated in the concept of messiahship. That Jesus Christ, the true Messiah predicted in God’s Word, would be rejected by the Jews of the first century shows that even at that time there was divergence of opinion on the meaning and authority of messianic passages in Scripture. In the course of Jewish history the meaning of the Messiah had undergone changes. Originally, it was believed that God would send His special messenger, delivering Israel from her oppressors and instituting peace and freedom. However, today any idea of a personal messiah has been all but abandoned by the majority of the Jews. It has been substituted with the hope of a messianic age characterized by truth and justice.”13

Second, the salvation of the Jews is predicated on sacrifices, penitence, good deeds and a little of God’s grace, since they reject the substitutionary atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ.14 Salvation in Christianity is absolutely contingent on God’s grace, but not on the performance of good deeds.

Conclusion 

Every major religion of the world remains exclusive, for there are irreconcilable contradictions between these religions. The notion that Historic Christianity is the only religion that claims exclusivity is, therefore, incorrect. - Rajkumar Richard.           

So, you are also programmed to write this sentence?

https://youtu.be/YBtrznLRZYQ

Do you think it's all just programmed? You are wrong in your assumption.

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevanceinvolving a conclusion that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. In other words, a fact is ignored in favor of attacking its source.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are not conclusive in determining its merits.

We need to see what people will have to say if they believed that Jesus was born to a Virgin? Who was his Father? Then will have to answer also to the question as to who is the Father of Adam?

You see God has to be the Father not in the human sense I.e., to be married to a women to have a Child, but through holy spirit. Bible clearly says, "

Luke 1:34-35 New International Version (NIV)

34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God.

https://youtu.be/c6L92bo-LDQ

Apart from these Jesus claimed to be the Son of God or God himself and that is why he was Crucified.
John 10:33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God.”


Jesus answering high priest:

Mark 14:61-65 New International Version (NIV)

61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

They all condemned him as worthy of death.65 Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him

Jesus was not like any other religious leaders and religions. He claimed to be the God himself, if what Jesus claimed to be true or false will ultimately affect him as he is the source of the religion. Now we know that through history we can confirm and realize such a person exists by the account of their eyewitnesses. Jesus was told to be a person with divine nature and claimed to be God and proved it in Roman historians, Greek historians, Jews historians. Now some may say that a group of people or Jews planned in such a way to create and establish such a person to be centrality of a religion? Well that is impossible because Virgin Birth is impossible to make up, well fulfilling the prophesies of the old testament is impossible as to where one will born (can we decide on it? As Bethlehem was prophesied before thousands of years of Jesus' birth) To whom he will be born? (Can we make a choice? To be born to David's Bloodline)

Supernatural and Godly intervention in the miracles points that Jesus is God, his death was predicted and also his resurrection. His disciples though saw all these were afraid when they saw their Savior on Cross, but transformed when they saw resurrected Jesus they gave up their lives defending their faith. The empty tomb, the places mentioned, rivers, wells, mountains, etc are all there today to be verified.

To My Christian Friends

@⁨Venkatesh SVCK⁩ you are discriminating on the basis of religion. You are looking at one side of the coin, there are many other organizations and people given their life for service for the Love of God and people.

Why don't you question other religions imposing rules which are against the freedom? Are you religious or using atheism to oppose your points against other religions and make yourself a hypocrite?

The freedom of religion should never be contained, if one person is killed in the name of religion thousands will be converted, if one Church is burned or destroyed thousands and millions will be established. Here in our country there are places where they give free food and deceive people to follow their religion and people believe because they get food, other places they restrict certain food because they are the Gods, certain places they impose some sort of exercise (for namesake) but actually make you sick and suicidal. - https://youtu.be/6DZ7oz_fIq8

Then we have to make use of technology that will work like making us robots - https://youtu.be/S_bvQO6K5fY

Policies without proper planning and prepration that destroys the nation - https://youtu.be/xrPLI029Jic


Cant cast the vote as it's been tampered - https://youtu.be/TDeJ5o3ZlEQ

People go only with ideology - https://youtu.be/CqfsjABygiU

And you give the truth they won't take it.
https://youtu.be/_zjZfwOGnKk

Well things apart from these the four basic questions has no answers in any other religion except Christianity.

Origin, Mortality, Purpose, Destiny -
https://youtu.be/Hfb5-7mtC-8

Origin: In the beginning God created. In other religions there was pre creation matters (no explanation of how they got into picture) ex: from vishnu bramha comes into picture from a lotus then bramah creates the universe with 3 leaves.... Etc. And then we have mythology over mythology, written by one man about the whole history? What was the source? His own imaginations and interpretations, some truth but others myths.

Those who believe in one God (even Christianity believes in one God but three persons in essence) and one person, Has to answer as to how God bring alone created humans? Was the purpose of creating humans is only to make him an object like robot and control by acts? Or As Christianity says God was three persons in essence that they were equal, they had mutual understanding, Love, Peace, harmony which then flowed to humans as we are created in the image of God?

What does atheism has to say?  Big bang and evolution don't know where we came from except from monkey and those monkeys came from another organisms.


On Mortality:
https://youtu.be/xUohtd2hP78



On Purpose:
https://youtu.be/EQnkCmUOTIE

On Destiny:

https://youtu.be/SBCn6_aTkP4

David - A man after God's own heart

David's life is an inspiration, as God views our life as equal as any others. When we look at David's life we see up's and downs. We could relate to how David sinned and then repented. Believed in God's Mercy and Grace. How to worship God and to praise him.

David the shepherd:
When he was shepherding, he learnt the goodness of God both as a Shepherded who gives his life for the sheep and not run away. Palon 23 is an amazing testamony of that. The Shepherded knows where to lead the sheep and the sheep hears the shepherded's voice. Jesus gives the example of the Good Shepherded.

John 10:11-18 New King James Version (NKJV)

11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. 12 But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. 13 The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. 15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock andone shepherd.

17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

1 Samuel 16:7 ►

Verse (Click for Chapter)

New International Version
But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

Evidence of God

It's not evidence for God, it's evidences of God. Now, historically and scientifically there are many arguments that prove that there is God. Two most important arguments are Cosmological Argument and Fine tuning or Intelligent Designer or design argument.

Now, if we were to look back at time we could possibly say there was a time before that time. This was the thought on time by philosophers and scientists until recent times. Say for example if I say 10 million years they say there was 10 million plus a year before that, this could go for million and million and billions of years. So, they came to a conclusion pointing to eternity, that there could be no specific point of time in the past that could be pointed out. But, recently in the late 19 and 20th century a bunch of scientist proved that there was a beginning, this is precesily what the Bible points to when it says, "In the beginning God created Heavens and the earth".

This points to a Creator rather than merely a force, because forces are of 4 types and they are not a begin. A force cannot think or have will.

According to the present understanding, there are four fundamental interactions or forces: gravitation, electromagnetism, the weak interaction, and the strong interaction.

The second argument is the fine tuning of universe, we are not just speaking about the life on the planet earth, which is thought to have evolued over a period of time and the stronger has the ability to survive and we are just animals from same ansistors, which basically is a lie and there are no proofs. 

Smolin concludes that the chances that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters contains stars suitable to sustain life are ridiculously small. He calculates it to be infinitesimally smaller than one against the sum of all neutrons and protons in all the stars of the observable universe combined, which is 1E80. The number he comes up with, one chance in 1E229 *), comes from a straightforward calculation, explained in the notes to the chapter of his book. A common objection against this sort of calculations is that it is fallacious to vary only one parameter while holding all the rest constant, and probability space would be considerably widened were several parameters allowed to co-vary. Yet as cosmologist Luke Barnes shows in his in his article from p. 19 onward, with impressive graphs for a number of cases, in general this objection does not hold.
*) that is one chance in 10 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. No, this is not a joke. (You can do the math yourself: a trillion is 1E12, a trillion trillion (or a trillion times trillion) is 1E24, and so on.)
Max Tegmark writes:

"For instance, if the electromagnetic force were weakened by a mere 4%, then the sun would immediately explode (the diproton would have a bound state, which would increase the solar luminosity by a factor 1E18). If it were stronger, there would be fewer stable atoms. Indeed, most if not all the parameters affecting low-energy physics appear fine-tuned at some level, in the sense that changing them by modest amounts results in a qualitatively different universe.
"If the weak interaction were substantially weaker, there would be no hydrogen around, since it would have been converted to helium shortly after the Big Bang. If it were either much stronger or much weaker, the neutrinos from a supernova explosion would fail to blow away the outer parts of the star, and it is doubtful whether life-supporting heavy elements would ever be able to leave the stars where they were produced. If the protons were 0.2% heavier, they would decay into neutrons unable to hold onto electrons, so there would be no stable atoms around. If the proton-to-electron mass ratio were much smaller, there could be no stable stars, and if it were much larger, there could be no ordered structures like crystals and DNA molecules."Leonard Susskind writes in The Cosmic Landscape:

"To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is most certainly no accident." (The vacuum energy relates to the cosmological constant.)Stephen Hawking writes in A Brief History of Time, p. 125:


"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (p. 125).




To conclude, life in this planet exists because God created the Universe, Time and Matter. He created us humans in his Image. Godhead Father, Son Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit are one. Jesus-The son of God lived a sinless life dead for us and rose on the third day.

His resurrection points to life after death. A hope for all of us.

This is a scientific world. We look at things according to the preponderance of facts. So if we look at data and it looks like something has occurred that may be miraculous, we’ve got to put the miraculous question on the back burner and at first just ask the historical question: What happened with the Resurrection? We don’t have to decide right now if God raised Jesus, but I think the way to start is to say, “What happened in time and space? Was there a man named Jesus? Did He die on a cross? And did His Disciples see Him again?”

Let’s not ask right now, “Is the Resurrection of Jesus an event caused by God?” This is not a question historians can help us answer. They will tell you they don’t have the tools to talk about miracles. But they do have the tools to say this man walked and talked in first century Palestine. Secondly, they have the tools to say He died on the cross, a victim of Roman crucifixion. They have the tools to say people believed they saw Him afterwards.

Can Miracles Happen?

On the one hand I want to say miracles cannot be ruled out a priori. But on the other hand, I want to say, “Let’s first talk about what is good history and then we’ll ask the question, “Could any of these be miraculous?” I think what I’m getting here is that historians do not have a choice but to take a line of facts in the direction that the data point us. If history says Jesus is thus and so, we have to be open to looking at that.

Now, what I meant there about the Resurrection goes something like this: I want to know if a man named Jesus of Nazareth walked and talked on the earth about 25, 27, 28 A.D. Historians come in and say, “Oh, yes. Virtually nobody thinks that He didn’t live.” Rudolf Bultmann, by the way, said, “We are now at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus lived, walked, talked in history.” So, the historian steps in and says, “Yes, I’ve got data for that.”

How about, “He died”? “Well, that’s not problem. Most people die.” And historians say, “Let’s follow that path. Yes, it takes us to the cross. The Romans hung Jesus, they put Him on the cross, He died, and we can find that in history.”

Now, when you get to the Resurrection, people start getting a little nervous. But here’s the point I’m making: let’s not ask the question, “Did God intervene and pull Him out of the tomb?” Let’s ask a much easier question, “Jesus of Nazareth, who walked and talked in Palestine, who was believed to have been crucified on the cross, did anybody claim to have seen Him alive after the cross? Did people walk with Him, and talk to Him and touch Him?”

You know, C. S. Lewis says the miraculous part of an event is “the initial aspect where it enters history. But after that, everything else is very normal. For example, if Jesus multiplied loaves and fish for 5,000-plus people, once He did the miracle—the multiplication–everybody ate, everybody was full, and everybody got tired. That’s what happens after you eat, that’s what food does—the miracle is the multiplication, not the eating and all this.

With the Resurrection accounts, we want to ask a simple question: Was there a man named Jesus, did He die on the cross, and did people claim to see Him afterwards? If so, why? Those are certainly claims that historians can get their fingers on. We have data there.

Just the Historical Facts

Now, the question here, obviously, is what kind of data do we have? What are the “facts”? Because some people are going to be screaming, saying, “There are no facts!” Evangelical Christians are going to look at the New Testament text and say, “Facts are all over the place. Every time I read and find one, that’s a fact, because I believe the Scriptures are inspired.” Others will say, “No. It’s only a book of ancient literature.” Now you have to ask the question, “Which are believable facts and which are not?”

Most scholars will give you a list of facts surrounding the events that Christians call the Gospel: the trial, the death, the burial, the resurrection of Jesus. I think there are at least twelve facts that critical scholars will admit. The vast majority of scholars will give you more than these, but there are at least twelve facts virtually every scholar will admit.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried. Nothing strange about these things. Most people die. Most people are buried.
3. His death caused the Disciples to despair and lose hope, believing His life had ended. What would you say if your best friend died very suddenly?
4. Now, I admit this one is not as widely held, but many scholars believe that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later.
5. The Disciples had experiences… [And I’ll say this the way that even the critics will be able to accept it, I think.] The Disciples had experiences that they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. They thought Jesus appeared to them.
6. Because of these experiences the Disciples were transformed from doubters into bold proclaimers of His death and resurrection. They had been afraid of their own shadow, so to speak, and certainly afraid to identify themselves with Jesus.
7. This message was the center of preaching in the early Church. Remember what Paul said–”Of first importance”: death, burial, resurrection of Jesus.
8. This message was especially proclaimed in the environs of Jerusalem where Jesus had died and was buried just shortly before.
9. As a result of this preaching, the Church was born and it grew.
10. Sunday became the primary day of worship. And that’s significant for Jewish believers.
11. Jesus’ own brother James, who had been a skeptic, was converted to the faith when he also “believed” that he saw the resurrected Jesus.
12. A few years later, Paul was converted by an experience which he likewise “believed” to be the appearance of the risen Jesus.

What I’m saying is that with the exception of the empty tomb, virtually all critical scholars accept this list as historical, and most of them will even grant the empty tomb. You can check my book, The Historical Jesus, as well as books by others to find lists of critical scholars who accept all of these things.

Now, you might say, “Wait a minute. Twelve? That’s not bad, but can we cut this list down? Can we get some more skeptics involved by being even pickier in what data we take?

All right. I’ll arbitrarily reduce this list to say four, five, or six:

• Jesus died due to crucifixion;

• The Disciples had experiences that they believed were the appearance of the risen Jesus;

• Their lives were transformed because of that; and

• A man named Saul of Tarsus believed that he was converted to Jesus by an appearance, a personal appearance of the risen Jesus to him.

These are four tough facts that virtually anybody is going to give you. And I think that we can build a case for that central proclamation of the death and resurrection of Jesus based on just these four facts alone. We might add a couple of others in here:

• The Resurrection is the center of early Christian preaching;

• What do you do with a fellow like James, the brother of Jesus–a skeptic who comes to Christ?

• The fact that the Resurrection of Christ was proclaimed very early.

Now, here’s my point. With these facts, and the data that modify these facts, that are admitted by all, we have enough of a basis to say that Jesus died and that He was raised again from the dead. You can take home the whole pie with just these facts.

From-https://www.jashow.org/articles/guests-and-authors/dr-gary-r-habermas/facts-concerning-the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ/

On miracles

If I put six pennies into a drawer on Monday and six more on Tuesday, the laws decree that – other things being equal – I shall find twelve pennies there on Wednesday. But if the drawer is has been robbed I may in fact find only two. Something will have been broken (the lock of the drawer or the laws of England) but the laws of arithmetic will not have been broken.

Lewis, C. S. (1947) ‘Miracles’ ‘Chapter 8: Miracles and the Laws of Nature’ p 60

On Suffering

Luke 7:11-17 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

Jesus Raises the Widow’s Son at Nain

11 Soon afterwards[a] he went to a town called Nain, and his disciples and a large crowd went with him. 12 As he approached the gate of the town, a man who had died was being carried out. He was his mother’s only son, and she was a widow; and with her was a large crowd from the town. 13 When the Lord saw her, he had compassion for her and said to her, “Do not weep.” 14 Then he came forward and touched the bier, and the bearers stood still. And he said, “Young man, I say to you, rise!” 15 The dead man sat up and began to speak, and Jesus[b] gave him to his mother. 16 Fear seized all of them; and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has risen among us!” and “God has looked favorably on his people!” 17 This word about him spread throughout Judea and all the surrounding country.

John 16:33 New International Version (NIV)

33 “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”

“There is pain in this world, and it hurts, it hurts a lot for those who go through it.” ― The fact that Jesus came to earth where he suffered and died does not remove pain from our lives.

If we were to look at any situation and ask God why? He will be able to answer. The very fact that he suffered for our sins is to say that he loves us, but yet when sufferings really hurt we start asking questions.

What about innocent lives? Lives of innocent children?

One indication is that they may be in heaven, the example is from 2 Samuel 12:23 when David's first son died, his response was, "I will go to him(Heaven), but he will not return to me"

2 Samuel 12:23 NIV
But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

The 21st century has been the bloodiest century. Atheism has killed more than any other reason. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini etc put together have killed more people. ISIS or islamic terrorist groups use religion as a reason to acheive their materialistic goals.

On Crucifixation

Crucifixation of Jesus was an astounding act of obedience. It's a demonstration of Love, an act of greatness, it's the greatest form of Love. It's looking at the Joy of Salvation of humankind who look at him, on the cross. The King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He is kind and merciful. Ever wondered why he has not punished for our wrongdoings? Because he gives is choice to choose him as Savior and Lord. To show us that there is no other way for the Salvation of humankind.

The Bible says so....

1 Timothy 2:4-6 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

4 God wants everyone to be saved and to fully understand the truth. 5 There is only one God, and there is only one way that people can reach God. That way is through Christ Jesus, who as a man 6 gave himself to pay for everyone to be free. This is the message that was given to us at just the right time.

Psalm 103:10 ►

Verse (Click for Chapter) New International Version he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities.

So, there are more than one reason for why God allows people choices. Ex: To choose the Land between Abraham and Lot. Lot thought he choose the right one, but we know that city he ended up staying was burnt. 

The greed of Gehazi - 2ki 5:20

Gehazi, the servant of Elisha the man of God, said to himself, "My master was too easy on Naaman, this Aramean, by not accepting from him what he brought. As surely as the LORD lives, I will run after him and get something from him."

Jesus has warned about making corrections, repentance and Salvation:
Jesus gives us an idea about how his Judgement will be.

Mat 5:25
"Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison.


Cross is a place where I see God's anger being Judgemental and mercy on being Crucified. He offers this great sacrifice for us to know how much he loves us than how much he can Judge, of course he will Judge. But His Love is greater than the Judgement, that is why Paul could say "Grace abounds".

Psalm 103:10 ►

Verse (Click for Chapter) New International Version he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities.

On Love

The origination of Love is from God. If God has not Loved us we would not have freedom, choices. The very life that we live is because of the Love God has for us and granted to experience his Love and forgiveness.

John 3:16 NIV
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The perfect Love in the community of the God-Head Father, Son and Holy Spirit in itself gives us the meaning and the message of Love that was shared with us through the Son Jesus Christ. If God was one and only one without a community of God-Head where would have God showed his Love? Whom did God Love? and for what God Loves will all becomes a stand still argument. So, within the God-Head has a great Love which was then shared to the people who are made in the image of God.

The greek word for Love has four meanings:

The Greek language distinguishes at least four different ways as to how the word love is used. Ancient Greek has four distinct words for love: agápe, éros, philía, and storgē. However, as with other languages, it has been difficult to separate the meanings of these words when used outside their respective contexts. Nonetheless, the senses in which these words were generally used are as follows:

• Agápe (ἀγάπη agápē^[1]) means "love: esp. charity; the love of God for man and of man for God."^[2] Agape is used in ancient texts to denote feelings for one's children and the feelings for a spouse, and it was also used to refer to a love feast.^[3] Agape is used by Christians to express the unconditional love of God for his children.^[4] This type of love was further explained by Thomas Aquinas as "to will the good of another."^[5]
• Éros (ἔρως érōs) means "love, mostly of the sexual passion."^[6] The Modern Greek word "erotas" means "intimate love." Plato refined his own definition: Although eros is initially felt for a person, with contemplation it becomes an appreciation of the beauty within that person, or even becomes appreciation of beauty itself. Plato does not talk of physical attraction as a necessary part of love, hence the use of the word platonic to mean, "without physical attraction." In the Symposium, the most famous ancient work on the subject, Plato has Socrates argue that eros helps the soul recall knowledge of beauty, and contributes to an understanding of spiritual truth, the ideal "Form" of youthful beauty that leads us humans to feel erotic desire – thus suggesting that even that sensually based love aspires to the non-corporeal, spiritual plane of existence; that is, finding its truth, just like finding any truth, leads to transcendence.^[7] Lovers and philosophers are all inspired to seek truth through the means of eros.
• Philia (φιλία philía) means "affectionate regard, friendship," usually "between equals."^[8] It is a dispassionate virtuous love, a concept developed by Aristotle.^[9] In his best-known work on ethics, Nicomachean Ethics, philia is expressed variously as loyalty to friends (specifically, "brotherly love"), family, and community, and requires virtue, equality, and familiarity. Furthermore, in the same text philos denotes a general type of love, used for love between family, between friends, a desire or enjoyment of an activity, as well as between lovers.
• Storge (στοργή storgē) means "love, affection" and "especially of parents and children"^[10] It is the common or natural empathy, like that felt by parents for offspring.^[11] Rarely used in ancient works, and then almost exclusively as a descriptor of relationships within the family. It is also known to express mere acceptance or putting up with situations, as in "loving" the tyrant. This is also used when referencing the love for one's country or a favorite sports team.

God's Love towards us is incomprehensible, because the Nature of God is Love. He Loves us not because of condition or for a benefit. He Loves us not because of what we have done for him not that kind of reciprocal Love - Give and take. But its Eternal. Psalm 136 tells of his "Eternal Love" for us and what he has done for us. The ultimate demonstration of Love of God for us is Cross. Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. The intention behind this one he saw that we were perishing in our sins and if only he could redeem us from it we will be saved, we will be Joyful - Hebrews 12:2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

John 15:13 NIV
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.

Not because for a simple cause, he saw them feared and wondered themselves as slaves, that they are to be called as "Slaves". For this Jesus said, "John 15:15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you."

So to know Master's Business, We are called as friends not just because Jesus intended to, but when we do whatever he has commanded us to do.

1 John 4:18 NIV
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

1 Peter 4:8 NIV
Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.

On predestination and freewill

On predestination and freewill. God is omnipotent there is no doubt regarding that, he knows the future, because Time(past, present, future), Matter(solid, liquid, gas) and Space(height, length, breadth) are not limited factors for God but for us. If it were that everything that happens is because what God has already prepared. We don't have choices or freewill even to Choose him as God, as that option also would not be there, but today we have a choice to choose him or reject him. But the Love does not force and Perfect Love gives freedom of choice. We have to ask ourselves a question, that if I can ask or say about God's predestination, "that everything happens because God has already predestined) am I saying this statement because I had a free choice/freewill or was it already predestined to ask such questions? The later can't be possible(predestination) as it claims to be the ultimate reason for the truth and if you state a contradictory statement to it, it diminishes the truth and diminished your point. So, what about the Omnipotent of God then? How can we say God chooses and also God prepared/decided on people. We as humans know a lot and  we do predict. Say for example, "I know my friend very well, the choice that he makes on the flavor of Ice Cream when we step into Baskin Robins, I am very much aware to serve him eatable when he comes for lunch, so when we have pizzas and rats I am sure that he chooses pizzas. Now, I can't say I am God just because I can pridect theses few things, but If we see through out history on God's predictions only God can predict certain things, as said earlier for God nothing is limited Ex: Jesus' Birth prophesy, anyone could have claimed to be God in Flesh as Jesus did, but if we carefully look into the predictions we can't deny the fact that only Jesus can and have proved to be what he claimed to be, "The Birthplace(Bethlehem) was predicted some 700 to thousands of years before his Birth, His Bloodline(Bloodline of David), Miraculous Birth (Virgin Birth), A Prophet like Moses(Deuteronomy 18:15), 

GENESIS 3:15
THE PROTOEVANGELIUM

etc. And many others can't be altered by anyone, as these are beyond and person. Even if Jesus well planned to do all the things as mentioned to be like Messiah, he had no choice of his Birth, Place, born to Virgin. God being the Omnipotent can predict and prophesy. He does this to show us that only God/He can do this, it tells us about his divine power and authority, many instances he tells us about his Goodness and also to assist us to walk in the right path, to do his will and to warn of the coming destruction or for the destruction/reward for sin.

Peter and the rooster.

Luke 22:54-62 English Standard Version (ESV)

Peter Denies Jesus

54 Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest's house, and Peter was following at a distance. 55 And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat down among them. 56 Then a servant girl, seeing him as he sat in the light and looking closely at him, said, “This man also was with him.” 57 But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.” 58 And a little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” But Peter said, “Man, I am not.” 59 And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying, “Certainly this man also was with him, for he too is a Galilean.” 60 But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” And immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. 61 And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.” 62 And he went out and wept bitterly.

The resurrection by far the greatest miracle of all time. Jesus raised many, but all died the second time. Only Jesus rose never to die again.

So, Resurrection is a great event. 1 Corinthians 15 speaks a lot about ou. Let's see if Jesus really claimed that he will dur and raise again on the third day.


Jesus's divinity has not only been proved to be true because of his life, death and resurrection nor only in or from his sayings, but from the basic fact of prophesy. Jesus was born to a Virgin as prophesied, his bloodline, that he will be the great grandson of King David was prophesied, the place of his Birth and we can show many other prophesy like the one that Misse points out that there will be a great prophet, the stars that directed the wise men was to find the King of Jews.

Evidence for Jesus's Resurrection is the key to understanding why he has to die on the Cross.