This is by far the most-detailed of our half-dozen categories. It may surprise many readers that we have no reliable historical data that any of the founders of the world’s major religions ever claimed to be God, deity, or a comparative concept. In other words, at least no early, reliable writings attest such a claim by these founders on their own behalf. In fact, for several of them, their views are quite opposed to such a claim.

Non-Christian Religious Founders

The religious founders that differ most from Christianity often exhibited an early form of philosophical naturalism. Almost incredibly for some, Buddha most likely rejected belief in God, at least in the sense of a personal or creator God. At least Buddha’s more philosophically- inclined followers tended to follow the same course.10 As S.A. Nigosian attests in a section entitled, “Denial of the Existence of a Creator God,” it is “(f)undamental to Buddhism” that reality is impersonal. While there is a life-principle in nature, especially the Mahayana Buddhist version of China and Japan “philosophically denies the existence of a creator god that controls both nature and human destiny.”11

Nigosian notes a difference with popular Buddhism, however, which remains “incurably polytheistic” even though “these heavenly beings are not ‘gods’ in any absolute sense.” For instance, these beings are still subject “to the law of rebirth.” So for Buddhism as a whole, it is incorrect to discuss these matters by utilizing the term “God” in any absolute or theistic sense, including for Buddha.12

Allie Frazier largely agrees with this assessment regarding Chinese Buddhism, likewise noting that, “Superstition, magic, and mythological beings were entirely absent from early Buddhism.” However, later Buddhism, especially in “its most extensive period of growth in China” from 220-589 AD, many other popular teachings crept in, including that of “divine

figures and heroic saints.”13 But it should be noted that this time of Buddhist growth in China, including the move away from the earlier time to superstition and mythology, began about 700 years after Buddha’s death, and extending to over 1100 years afterwards by the end of this period.

Another example is that of highly influential Chinese teachers Confucius and Lao Tzu (Taoism), who definitely exerted tremendous ethical, social, political, and cultural influences on their students and societies. This was especially true of Confucianism. However, these teachers were not theologians.14 To place some of their teachings in a somewhat similar cross-cultural context, many of their aphorisms can be a bit reminiscent of the Jewish Book of Proverbs.

In least for earlier forms of both Confucianism and Taoism, Bahm points out that, “there is nothing prior to, other than, or outside of, Nature to influence it.” Thus, “Nature acts naturally, or in accordance with its own nature.” So, “Tao or Nature is naturalistic.” Further, “Tao is impersonal. . . . there is nothing supernatural in Tao and nothing superior to Tao.” For instance, nature cannot be acted upon or changed, such as by prayer (Tao Teh King 56). Both Confucius and Lao Tze were naturalistic, humanistic, and, “Neither appealed to a God or any other principle outside the process.”15

Similarly to what occurred in Buddhism, however, Frazier adds more details. In their early texts, “Confucius is treated as a normal human being and no extravagant claims are made concerning his origin or his success in life.” But similarly to what happened in Buddhism, “In later Confucian texts, Confucius is represented as a superhuman teacher” and dignified above the ordinary Chinese.16 Similarly, earlier Taoist texts exhibited teachings on “moral action and conduct” along with “individual spirituality” and thoughts concerning the glories of nature. In contrast, later Taoist writings included “treatises on magic and longevity, ramblings by saints in states of trance.”17

So the earlier, more reserved teachings of Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism each evolved into more phenomenal, mystical, and occultic versions. There is a fair amount of agreement that among the chief reasons for these changes was that these religions became rivals of each other and competed for adherents. The result was the inclination to incorporate widely and syncretistically from both the surrounding religious and non-religious folk beliefs. As

Frazier states rather succinctly, all three religions “responded to every pressure from the laity to provide whatever succor or spiritual comfort was required by the people.”18

At least from what we can tell authoritatively concerning Buddha, Confucius, and Lao Tzu, then, there are no rivals to Jesus whatsoever in that these three teachers definitely did not refer to themselves as deity, especially not in the theistic sense that we are speaking here. In fact, each of these systems might be referred to as some variety of qualified naturalism, which is diametrically opposed to Jesus’ outlook. While we have seen that later versions of these religions migrated away from the earlier forms, this was more prominent hundreds of years later and did not reflect the views of the founders, but was decidedly more syncretistic.

Beyond these ancient and more naturalistic ethical, social, and political thinkers, another prominent category for the foremost religious founders would be that of a prophet. Geographically, they would congregate westward from where Buddha emerged, over to the shores of the Mediterranean area, in Israel. Several of the best-known individuals who established or updated major belief systems claimed to be no more than special teachers, even if noble, honorable, and illustrious ones. In such cases, it would be offensive and even blasphemous to call or refer to these prophets as God or deity in any sense.

The chief prophet of the Persian religion named after him, Zoroaster is usually dated to the Sixth Century BC. But he never claimed to be deity. A key concern is that the reports indicate a span of potential dates for Zoroaster’s birth that varies as widely as about 1000 years, from 1500 to 500 BC!19 But the major problem is that, of all the Zoroastrian writings, none date between 250 BC and 225 AD. So this automatically removes the most important material to at least 700 years after Zoroaster lived and perhaps as much as 1700 years later, given his range of possible birth dates.20

The only items that could have been written by Zoroaster himself are a small portion of a set of non-theological prayers and hymns, contained within the Avesta, composed over about a thousand years. Worst of all, the earliest manuscript copies of the Avestas are “highly dubious” and date to the Thirteenth Century AD, or some 1800 years after the earliest of Zoroaster’s birth dates.21 Much of the religion’s theology (especially its important eschatology) comes from the Bundahishn, which is a Ninth Century AD writing.22 So the end result is that we know very little concerning Zoroaster’s theology except through very late sources not written by him.23 There is certainly no rival here to Jesus’ teaching on his deity.

The Qur'an definitely does not elevate Muhammad to the place of Allah (Surahs 14:11; 40:78) or worship Muhammad (Surahs 21:25-26; 23:32; 41:14). So while Muhammad is Allah's chief prophet and messenger (Surahs 4:13-14; 16:43-44; 33:6, 33), there is no attempt to make him deity. To the contrary, Allah has no partners (Surahs 4:48, 171; 5:72, 117). Thus, Muhammad does not make claims such as those made by Jesus in the Gospels. As Muslim scholar Anderson notes, for Islam, “the one unforgiveable sin is that of shirk, or associating anyone or anything with the Almighty. The very idea of an incarnation of the deity is therefore anathema, or simple blasphemy.”24

Neither does the Old Testament place any prophet or leader on God's level. Arguably the most sacred text in the Old Testament, the Shema (Deut. 6:4) left no room for prophets or other human beings to co-occupy God’s place or throne. Rather, we are told that God will not share his glory with anyone else (Isa. 48:11). So neither are Abraham, David, Isaiah, Daniel, or anyone else candidates for godhood, and again, no claims are made for them such as Jesus makes in the Gospels.

In sum, none of these chief founders of the major world religions viewed so far claimed to be deity. Whenever their later followers may have drifted in such a direction, it was not because they were following their founder’s original teachings or directions. Further, such later notions exhibit two additionally significant problems. These later world religious concepts carry largely different meanings than the Christian sense, meaning that they were not in fact saying the same thing anyway. Further, the books in which these teachings are reported are far too late to track these different teachings to the original founders, both their original time of writing as well as their earliest extant copies.

The Case of Krishna

Representing Hinduism, perhaps Krishna comes the closest to being understood as God, according to their own texts. The most important manifestation of Vishnu, Krishna is referred to in the lofty terms of deity in the Bhagavad-Gita and even worshipped (for example, 4:13, 15; 9:18-20, 23; 18:65). The Bhagavad-Gita is a part of the larger text, the Mahābhārata.

Yet, there are several serious problems here. Initially, in what sense does Hindu teaching consider this notion of deity? Is it a reference to deity in the full theistic sense, or is it conceived some other way? To be God in the normal Hindu sense would be quite distinct from the views of the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim traditions.25 In the monotheistic religions, God is by nature totally separate from his creation. Further, human beings do not become God. In Christianity, there is only one such Incarnation of God, Jesus Christ. In the Bhagavad-Gita, however, the process of enlightenment can be attained by those who return to the Godhead and achieve their own divinity (especially 18:46-68).26 In a certain additional sense, in the Hindu tradition, all persons already have or may become divine.

An additional difference concerns historical matters. Scholars are not sure if Krishna ever lived or not. For example, in the introductory “Setting the Scene” in the volume above, it is said that Krishna was believed to have spoken the text of the Bhagavad-Gita to his student Arjuna some 5,000 years ago. Then we are told that, “The general pattern translators have followed” is to count the larger work of which the Bhagavad-Gita is a part (the Mahābhārata) as “quaint mythology” and Krishna himself as “a poetic device for presenting ideas.” “At best, He becomes a minor historical personage.”27

But shortly afterwards, editor A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda in the Preface reports the simply startling comment that Krishna “first spoke Bhagavad-gītā to the sun-god some hundreds of millions of years ago. We have to accept this fact” as part of the tradition. As if this is not tough enough, we are also told that Krishna “descends to this planet once . . . every 8,600,000,000 years”!28

But many questions rush upon us at once, especially issues concerning literalness and historicity. For instance, what is the relation between the 5,000 years ago conversation with his disciple Arjuna, the hundreds of millions of years ago discussion with the sun-god, and Krishna’s return every 8,600,000 years? We are apparently being asked to take all of these quite literally. Moreover, who is this “sun-god” and how does this fit into the picture of what is taught regarding Krishna’s deity? Are there many deities, then? That would be pretty typical of Hinduism, but the main point for our present purposes is that this would again have a potentially serious bearing on the previous question of the concept of deity that is being employed of Krishna.

For many readers, the years and personages involved in the previous two paragraphs by themselves would seem to indicate that, indeed, what was said above concerning the typical view being that Krishna was “a poetic device” or some other mythical construct seems to make some good sense! From the angle of typical Hinduism, this would not rule out the words of the book being truthful themselves in some non-historical sense, but it would rule out the deity of Krishna himself as any sort of historical rival to Jesus and his claims.

Also contributing to this notion is an even more crucial issue. None of the actual Hindu texts themselves, including the Bhagavad-Gita, can be accurately dated prior to the Twelfth Century AD!29 So even if one accepted the earlier date of Krishna actually living and talking with his first disciple Arjuna some 5,000 years ago, his words were not recorded for approximately 4200 years later! How many changes occurred to the text regarding Krishna’s teaching concerning himself (or anything else, for that matter) in over four millennia?

Irving Hexham presents a brief survey of several widespread dates for the actual writing of the Bhagavad-Gita, that still indicate at least two insurmountable problems. Any of the dates still necessitates a gap of at least 3300 to 3500 years, which is absolutely huge!30 Further, the date of composition is not as crucial here as the earliest extant copies that we have, since if the latter do not date before the 4200 year mark, then it is still just as fruitless of a process. But even the earlier date of composition is still far too late to have any reliable historical accounts of what may have been spoken or claimed in those earlier discussions. So it makes very little difference as to which dates are employed: tracking any possibility of Krishna’s original claims and teachings is absolutely fruitless.

Hence Krishna fails to provide any sort of historical challenge to Jesus’ claims.31 As we have seen further, none of the other founders of the world’s major religions were even in the vicinity of being a historical rival, either. We have found no discernable challenges to Jesus’ claim of deity here.

Jesus Christ’s Claims to Deity in Early Sources

Confucius and Lao Tzu are best considered as ethical, political, and social teachers, while Buddha apparently taught many spiritual values. But all three of these were probably some sort of proto-naturalists in their overall philosophy, although this is admittedly somewhat of a loaded, anachronistic term. On the other hand, prophets like Zoroaster, Muhammad, or major Jewish figures such as Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, or Daniel played major roles in teaching their people, though none of these ever attempted to employ personal deified characteristics. In fact, we have every reason to think that they would consider such moves to be highly blasphemous. Krishna is somewhat different, but severe historical and extremely late textual considerations indicate that, even if he actually lived, we have no reliable way whatsoever to ascertain his actual teachings about himself.

In total contrast as well as on a different level, the case for Jesus’ own teachings concerning his deity consists not only of clear messages, but the data are numerous enough that they can be sub-divided into various categories. We will demarcate five such taxonomies: Jesus claimed particular titles of deity for himself, such as (1) Son of God and (2) Son of Man. (Actions such as Jesus’ miracles may point somewhat further to these conclusions, but we will address this area below.)

Attracting much attention from critical scholars in recent years is that, immediately after Jesus’ crucifixion, the earliest believers gave recognition to Jesus’ teachings by (3) worshipping him, as well as by (4) taking the loftiest Old Testament teaching and titles reserved only for God and applying them directly to Jesus. (5) Very early, easily-memorized creedal teachings were formulated in the apostolic message and clearly included these lofty teachings, too. We will simply outline very briefly each of these areas.

One other point should be noted very carefully. It will definitely not be asserted or assumed that the truths taught in these texts are true simply because the Gospel or other New Testament references state these things. Rather, we will for the most part be citing only those well-acknowledged texts that are generally accepted as historical even by critical scholars. But note, too, that this content is not even historical just because the critical scholars say so, either. Many of these researchers are often predisposed not to employ these views themselves unless there are good reasons that back each one. So it is precisely these good reasons that indicate that the assertions in the text are Jesus’ genuine teachings, as well as showing at the same time why they are so highly-regarded by scholars. Footnoted sources will highlight many of these reasons for acceptance.

Son of God

First, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God in a number of places. One example is from the enigmatic, so-called early “Q” passage in Matthew 11:27 regarding his unique relationship with his Father. There is also the highly embarrassing32 statement in Mark 13:32, where Jesus asserted his lack of knowledge regarding his own return, included in the very same context where he affirmed that he was the heavenly Father’s son. Jesus also spoke of his Father in very familiar though exceptionally uncommon ways such as calling him the familiar Aramaic term Abba, thereby hinting at his personal knowledge of God (Mk. 13:36), as well as utilizing a parable to infer that he was the son of God who would later be killed (Mk. 12:1-12).33

Son of Man

Second, Jesus’ favorite self-designation was the Son of Man, which especially given his own descriptions, introduced images of the heavenly, pre-existent figure in Daniel 7:13-14. As the Son of Man, Jesus forgave sins even though the religious leaders who were present asserted properly that only God could do that (Mk. 2:1-12). Other recognized texts include rather shocking claims for a mere man to make (like Mk. 2:28), along with other so-called early Q texts (like Matt. 8:20; 11:19). Moreover, it is highly significant that the title Son of Man is used by Jesus in every one of the independent Gospel strata and did not originate in Judaism or in the early church, two highly impressive critical indications of its authenticity. Amazingly for instance, Jesus is not called the Son of Man in even a single New Testament epistle, indicating

that it was his own self-designation!34

One of our earliest and very clearest indications of Jesus’ self-claims that combined the two titles Son of God and Son of Man occurred when the High Priest asked Jesus if he were actually the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus declared firmly and positively. Then going further beyond the question, Jesus even asserted that he was likewise the Son of Man who would co- reign on God’s throne and come on the clouds in judgment! By his answer as well as by ripping his clothing, the High Priest pronounced his verdict that Jesus’ claims constituted blasphemy (Mk. 14:61-64).

Of the five claims that Jesus either affirmed or made in this setting (that he was the Messiah, the Son of God, the Son of Man, would be sitting on God’s right hand, and coming with the clouds of heaven in judgment), scholars often agree that probably Jesus’ strongest claim on this occasion was that he would sit on the right side of God on his throne. The high priest’s charge of blasphemy followed Jesus’ answer.35

These sayings of Jesus were recorded in documents that were written only several decades after the events, which is a small time gap in the ancient world. These texts are much, much closer to Jesus then are ancient writings to Buddha, Krishna, or Alexander the Great, for example. Additionally, there are strong reasons to hold that each volume was composed by authors who researched the material and were close to the occurrences. Moreover, many of the individual passages exhibit critical earmarks that argue specifically for their historicity.

Jesus Worshipped

Third, very soon after the crucifixion, Jesus was worshipped by monotheistic, Law- abiding Jews, providing a pointer to Jesus’ own teachings. The leading scholar concentrating on this subject is the University of Edinburgh’s Larry Hurtado, who has specialized in this theme for more than 25 years. He finds six practices of the early believers that indicate this direction, of which two examples are singing hymns and directing prayers to Jesus. These indications “appeared very early, at or near the outset of the early Christian movement.” They occurred “so early that practically any evolutionary approach is rendered invalid as historical explanation.” In fact, this phenomenon was “more like a volcanic eruption.”36 The radical change must be explained sufficiently.

Hurtado suggests that “we have to posit powerful revelatory experiences of followers of Jesus early in the days after his execution that conveyed the assurance that God had given Jesus unparalleled heavenly honor and glory.” For Hurtado, the experiences that gave rise to this worship of Jesus were his resurrection appearances.37

Jesus Given the Name of God

Fourth, Richard Bauckham of Cambridge University has argued another extremely powerful theme, championing the idea that, “The earliest Christology is already the highest Christology. I call it a Christology of divine identity.”38 Here is Bauckham’s chief idea regarding the biblical texts that place Jesus Christ on God’s throne: “My argument is that the exaltation of Jesus to the heavenly throne of God could only mean, for the early Christians who were Jewish monotheists, his inclusion in the unique identity of God.”39 Bauckham indicates that such divine identity is “not just a matter of what Jesus does, but of who Jesus is in relation to God.” This concept intrinsically “includes Jesus in the identity of the one God.”40

Beside the “throne texts,” other similarly powerful ideas of Jesus’ divine identity are revealed when the most exalted Old Testament teachings and titles that were reserved for God alone were then applied directly to Jesus Christ. This would include the application of the exclusive and absolutely sacred name of God, YHWH, to Jesus, the pre-existence of Jesus, as well as Jesus being added to the Old Testament Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4, where “A higher Christology . . . is scarcely possible.”41 Further and like Hurtado’s conclusions, these concepts date to the earliest strands of the church.42 Bauckham ends where he begins: “it becomes clear that, from the earliest post-Easter beginnings of Christology onwards, early Christians included Jesus, precisely and unambiguously, within the unique identity of the one God of Israel.”43

Early Creedal Texts

Fifth, there is a last but lengthy subject that can only be mentioned very briefly in this context. While it overlaps somewhat with the last two subjects, it nevertheless stands quite well on its own. The New Testament contains dozens of very early texts that actually pre-date the epistles in which they were recorded. They may basically be thought of as the answer to the exciting question, “Of what did the very earliest apostolic and other preaching look like before even a single New Testament book was ever written?” The earliest forms of these texts were oral, where they usually served the purpose of briefly summarizing the essentials of Christianity (usually the factual essence of the Gospel data) including the deity of Jesus Christ, and could easily be memorized, even by those who were illiterate.

Amazingly, scholars generally agree on the location of these traditions or creeds. These texts are recognized in many ways, but one of the clearest is when the New Testament writer explicitly tells us that he is repeating an early teaching, passing on a tradition, and so on.44 Others are identified by linguistic, syntactical, cadence, and other textual hints, and often concern the subject of Jesus occupying his heavenly place on the right side of God’s throne.45 While a bit different, it is widely agreed that there are also a number of brief sermon summaries within the Book of Acts which, like the other creedal materials, are much older than the book in which they appear.46

Among other crucial topics, these early creeds often applied the loftiest titles of deity to Jesus Christ.47 Intriguingly, this entire subject arose from studies by critical New Testament scholars rather than from evangelicals.48 Agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman both freely and often dates the earliest of these creeds to the 30s AD, sometimes within just 1-2 years after the crucifixion!49

Though we had to be necessarily brief in our treatment here, these five categories are very strong indications that Jesus claimed to be deity--clearly, often, and from very different angles, which indicate the presence of cumulative data. Jesus’ own use of the two titles Son of God and Son of Man are major indications of his self-consciousness. Different manifestations of worshipping Jesus and the application of the loftiest and most sacred Old Testament names (such as YHWH) and other concepts to Jesus Christ occurred immediately after the crucifixion. Both were due to experiences that the disciples wholeheartedly believed were appearances of the risen Jesus, providing two other crucial pointers to this conclusion of Jesus’ claims of deity. The exceptionally early creeds, many of which could well be apostolic in origin, also trace these incredible beliefs back to the very beginning.

Unlike the world religious teachers surveyed above, Jesus actually did make many crucial claims that are unlike those taught by any chief founder of the other major world religions. It is often assumed that these other founders made similar comments, but this cannot be substantiated from any reliable historical data. Neither can the non-Christian teachings be considered as just differing aspects of essentially similar messages, nor even minor variances to be accounted for by different cultures, either. Jesus’ claims were ontologically different than the others, thus having to do with Jesus Christ’s very nature, marking even deeper distinctions from the others.

Endnotes

10 Geoffrey Parrinder, Comparative Religion (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1962, 1975), 85. Hexham agrees (Concise Dictionary of Religion [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993], 39-40).

11 S.A. Nigosian, World Religions: A Historical Approach, Third ed. (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 2000), 80-81.

12 Nigosian, World Religions, 81.

13 Readings in Eastern Religious Thought, Vol. 3: Chinese and Japanese Religions, ed. by Allie M. Frazier (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), “The Religions of China,” 25-27.

14 Lao Tzu, Tao Teh King, Interpreted as Nature and Intelligence, ed. by Archie Bahm, Second ed. (Albuquerque, N.M.: World Books, 1986), 77.

15 These quotations are taken, respectively, from Bahm’s commentary in Tao Teh King, 77, 85, 78, 80, 114-115; cf.

16 Frazier, Chinese and Japanese Religions, 16.

17 Frazier, Chinese and Japanese Religions, 22-23.

18 Details are provided especially in Frazier, Chinese and Japanese Religions, 23-25; the quotation is from page 23; also Nigosian, 76-79, 88, 119, 124-125, 128; Bahm, 86.

19 Nigosian, World Religions, 216; Irving Hexham, Understanding World Religions (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 235. However, Hexham himself choses the traditional Sixth-Century BC date, in his volume Concise Dictionary of Religion, 239.

20 This is according to a Persian ancient historian of religion, Edwin Yamauchi. See his Persia and the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1990), 458-466 and Yamauchi’s lengthy essay, “Life, Death, and the Afterlife in the Ancient Near East,” in Richard N. Longenecker, Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 21-50, especially 47-49.

21 Winfried Corduan, A Tapestry of Faiths: The Common Threads Between Christianity and World Religions (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), especially 63-64; cf. Nigosian, World Religions, 22

22 Yamauchi, “Life, Death, and the Afterlife in the Ancient Near East,” 48; Negosian, World Religions, 221-222.

23 As in the example from Yamauchi, “Life, Death, and the Afterlife in the Ancient Near East,” 49; cf. Corduan, A Tapestry of Faiths, 63.

24 J.N.D. Anderson, Christianity and Comparative Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1970), 47 (Anderson’s emphasis).

25 An exceptional example of this difference in outlooks between Christian and Hindu believers is an older volume by Swami Akhilananda. He argues clearly that Jesus was actually an incarnation of God (37-39, 50, 55) and additionally agrees “in regarding Christ as unique” (56). Incredibly, he even quotes Swami Vivekananda as saying, “If I, as an Oriental, have to worship Jesus of Nazareth, there is only one way left to me, that is, to worship Him as God and nothing else.” (55)! But as to the meaning of these comments, Akhilananda is also exceptionally clear that there are major differences with the Christian view, for Hindus hold that there are many such incarnations of God (38-56, especially 44, 49, 51, 55-56). Swami Akhilananda, Hindu View of Christ (New York: Philosophical Library, 1949). The page numbers in this footnote are taken from an essay drawn from this book, Akhilananda’s “Hindu View of Christ” in Christianity: Some Non-Christian Appraisals, ed. by David W. McKain (New York: McGraw- Hill, 1964), 34-56.

26 In the popular version Bhagavad-Gita as it Is, Compete Ed., Rev. and Enlarged (including the original Sanskrit text), ed. with commentary by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda (Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1983), the editor (from the International Society for Krishna Consciousness) makes several comments on the text of 18:46-68. For examples, Krishna’s followers “will achieve the highest perfection” (comment on 18:46, page 830), as the actual text of 18:49 is translated. They “can attain to the supreme perfectional [sic] stage, Brahman, the state of highest knowledge” as in the translation of 18:50. The accompanying commentary states that followers can attain “the supreme stage of Brahman” (835).

27 Bhagavad-Gita as it Is, xiii.

28 Swami Prabhupāda, “Preface,” xix.

29 Nirad C. Chaudhuri, Hinduism: A Religion to Live By (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 30-31.

30 Cf. Hexham, Understanding World Religions, 145-147.

31 It should be noted carefully here, in keeping with our initially-stated task of not providing evidence for these claims but only comparing them for uniqueness, the point above with Krishna is not whether or not he lived or if his stated teachings in the Bhagavad-Gita are historical. Rather than the evidential angle, our chief point above was epistemic in nature: that the earliest texts of this book are too far away from any even possible original teachings, in which case we could never ascertain anything he taught, thus not knowing whether or not he rivaled Jesus’ teachings in any way. Therefore, in the end, we did not try to solve the problem of Krishna’s existence.

32 For those who are not familiar with the critical principle of embarrassment, it is definitely used in a positive rather than a negative way, in spite of its sound. The central idea is that a really embarrassing comment about Jesus would either never have been made, or at least that it would have been quite unlikely, unless Jesus had actually made the comment. In this case the point is that Jesus affirmed that he did not know the time of his own return. Hence it is known that he actually called himself the Son of the Father in this context.

33 On the Son of God, see the relevant critical sources such as Martin Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion, trans. by John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), particularly 8-15, 58-63, 67, 90-93; Ben Witherington III, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 213-233; Joachim Jeremias, “Abba” in The Central Message of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 9- 30; C.F.D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 22-31; Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology (Mahweh, NJ: Paulist, 1994), 80-89, 101; Howard Clark Kee, What Can We Know about Jesus? Understanding Jesus Today Series ed. by Howard Clark Kee (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 62-63, 111; I. Howard Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 111-125; F.F. Bruce, Jesus: Lord and Savior, The Jesus Library, ed. by Michael Green (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986), 156-163.

34 For the Son of Man, see Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, 233-256; Moule, The Origin of Christology, 11- 23; Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology, 92-102; Kee, What Can We Know about Jesus?, 62-64, 111; Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology, 63-82; Bruce, Jesus: Lord and Savior, 58-66; Royce G. Gruenler, “Son of Man,” and Robert Stein, “Jesus Christ,” both articles in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. by Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 1127-1129 and 584, respectively.

35 For perhaps the most thorough treatment of this passage, see Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus, Vol. 106 in Wissenschaftliche zum Neuen Testament, Second Series (Tübingen, Germany: J.C,B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1998). It was later reprinted as Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge against Jesus in Mark 14:53-65 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000). On the nature of the blasphemy in this case and signs of authenticity, see especially pages 196-237 in the latter edition. For other assessments, see Larry W. Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), especially 167-168; Craig A. Evans’ essential article, “In What Sense ‘Blasphemy’? Jesus before Caiphas in Mark 14:61-64,” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, Vol. 30 (1991), 215-222, 231-234; Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, 256-261; Moule, The Origin of Christology, 23-31.

36 Hurtado’s magisterial work on this subject is the 700 page work, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003). Also providing many insightful details, including many gems, is Hurtado’s earlier text, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), especially Chap. 5. The quotations here are taken from Hurtado’s volume, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? 23, 25.

37 Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 68, 94-95, 114-124; Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? 30, 47-48, 192-196.

38 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), x (emphasis added); cf. 30-31.

39 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 23 (emphasis added); cf. 25, 44, 249-251, and especially 172-181.

40 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 31 (Bauckham’s emphasis). For others of Bauckham’s important comments on the notion of divine identity and Jesus, cf. ix, 6 note 5, 207, 216-217, 233, 235, 253, 264-265.

41 For a few examples of each, see Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel. For the name YHWH being applied to Jesus, see pages 11-13, 24-25, 106, 194-195, 219-221. For the the pre-existence of Jesus, see pages x, 26-30, 32-33, 41-43, 207-208. For Jesus being added to the Shema, see pages 28, 101, and particularly pages 210-218. The quotation in the sentence above comes from page 30.

42 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, ix, 25, 128, 259 for just a few of these many references.

43 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, ix.

44 The chief examples include 1 Cor. 11:23-26; 15:3; 1 Thes. 2:15; 1 Tim. 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11; Titus 3:8; Heb. 1:2-3.

45 Major examples include those in Rom. 1:3-4; 4:25; 5:8; 10:9; 1 Cor. 8:6; Phil. 2:6-11, and Heb. 1:3. Cf. many others such as Eph. 1:20; Col. 1:15-20; 3:1; 1 Tim. 2:5-6; 3:16; Heb. 1:1; 1:13; 8:1; 12:2; 1 Pet. 1:21; 2:21; 3:18; 3:22.

46 The most-commonly mentioned candidates for these sermon segments are in Acts 1:21-22; 2:22-36; 3:13-16; 4:8- 10; 5:29-32; 10:39-43; 13:28-31; 17:1-3; 17:30-31. Those speaking of Jesus’ deity include Acts 2:33, 36; 5:31.

47 Like Acts 2:36; Rom. 1:3-4; 10:9; 1 Cor. 8:6; 11:23; and Phil. 2:6-11.

48 This is one of those rare subjects where older studies are often seen as the most authoritative ones, such as what is often proclaimed as the classic work: Oscar Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, trans. by J.K.S. Reid (London: Lutterworth, 1943). Other major studies include Cullmann, “The Tradition” (59-99) and other essays in The Early Church, ed. by A.J.B. Higgins (London: SCM, 1956); C.H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1936; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980); Dodd, “The Primitive Catechism and the Sayings of Jesus,” in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson, 1893-1958, edited by A.J.B. Higgins (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959), 106-118; Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, trans. by Norman Perrin (London: SCM, 1966).

49 Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Harper Collins, 2012), see pages 22, 27, 92-93, 97, 109-113, 130-132, 141, 144-145, 155-158, 164, 170-173, 232, 249-251, 254, 260-263; cf. 289-291.