All the three major theistic religions viz., Islam, Judaism and Christianity would agree with our conclusion that the Ultimate Reality, God, will have to be an Infinite Person Who is both transcendent and immanent. Islam would however emphasise His transcendence at some cost to His immanence. Islam and Judaism would clearly part company with Christianity when it comes to the plurality of Personality within the Unity of the Godhead. The tragedy of Judaism is that the Old Testament indicated that God was in some mysterious way a plurality. The Jew as hard put to explain passages like Psalm 45:6,7 by holding to an absolute Unity of the godhead. In the same way, his Scriptures implied that the Messiah was in some sense both divine and human. Jesus pointed up this difficulty to His fellow-Jews in the paradox of Psalm 110:1. The Jews were unable to answer Jesus on this point. We must be grateful to the Jews for carefully preserving the manuscripts including passages which went against their idea of monotheism. The full revelation of the doctrine of Trinity, however, had to await the completion of the New Testament.
As was sought to be established in the previous article, the God of the Bible is both transcendent and immanent, One Who is Personal and Who has a plurality of personality within the Unity of His being. The full and final communication of this God with the crown of His creation, humankind, had to be more than verbal - it had to be incarnational. The Originator of this communication was God Himself and the receptor was the human race. In order that the communication was perfect and distortionless, the Medium had to fully partake of the characteristics of both. In other words, He had to be fully god and fully man. Thus, the writer of the letter to the Hebrews could say that the earlier prepositional communications from God had been consummated in the personal incarnational life of His Son Jesus Christ (1:1,2).

Some years ago, Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan (who became our second President) made this statement as Spalding Professor of Eastern Ethics at Oxford University, 'Jesus is not exceptional but typical.' This article is devoted to an analysis of the truth content of this statement.
Firstly, the claim of Christ to uniqueness is repugnant to some solely because it is unique. They have no problems with god-men and gurus who claim to be reincarnations of others who have gone before but have serious reservations regarding Christ. They would prefer to reduce Him to manageable proportions by calling Him a great teacher. Let us first examine this aspect.
It must be said that from a philosophical perspective, it is not difficult to conceive of a unique approach to truth. All great questions of life have only one answer. Conflicting and contradictory answers cannot be valid. Jesus' unique claim for Himself while answering Thomas (John 14:6) is a statement which is philosophically and logically reasonable. (Whether He had any basis at all for making such a claim is a separate matter and is discussed in the following paragraphs). Even those who deny unique and exclusive approaches to truth would insist that their own approach is unique and exclusive! Otherwise, they would have nothing to say! Truth, by definition is therefore exclusive and narrow. It has to exclude errors in order to qualify to be truth. If I should insist that the sum of 2 and 2 can only be 4 and nothing else, no one in his right mind would accuse me of being narrow minded! In fact, in every department of life we proceed on this basis in our search for truth. However, when it comes to the most important issues concerning God, we abdicate our intellectual responsibility by embracing the wrong kind of broad-mindedness in our pursuit of truth. From John 14:6, we conclude that Jesus made this unique claim for Himself as the Truth. There is no reason why His claim should be rejected out of hand just because it is unique. For this very reason, in fact, we ought to investigate His claims all the more seriously.
Secondly, we turn to the question of whether empirical evidence exists which would force us to accept His claim of uniqueness. Here again we refer back to another statement of Dr. Radhakrishnan made in a different context, 'Christians are ordinary people who make extraordinary claims!"
The most astonishing claims Christians make relate to Jesus Christ. This Man lived in a country about 4000 km. west of India in an obscure part of the globe which was under Roman rule 2000 years ago during His lifetime. He did not travel more than 200 miles of a single journey in His life; He never wrote a book, and did not speak a foreign language. He lived under the stigma of an illegitimate birth, and had a public exposure of about 31/2 years and died a criminal's death. He is reputed to have risen from the dead three days after His death. Yet His influence has spread far and wide throughout the world. Christians claim that this Man was the unique - spiritual not biological - 'Son' of God and outside of His Name, there is no salvation for humankind. What a stupendous claim! The awesomeness of this claim is seen in stark relief by C.S. Lewis: "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I am ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I do not accept His claim to be God'. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse." (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, New York; The Macmillan Company, 1952).

To facilitate our consideration of Jesus' claims within the limitations of space, I suggest that we look into
(i) the prophetic record within Jesus' Jewish community which predicted the coming of such a person,
(ii) the historicity of His life,
(iii) His unusual birth,
(iv) His spotless life and incomparable teaching both implying His claim to deity,
(v) His sacrificial death,
(vi) His resurrection, and
(vii) the continuing influence of His life in the world.

1. Jesus was born as a Jew. His community believed in the divine inspiration and authority of the Scriptures consisting of 22 books (the same as the 39 books of the Christian Old Testament). These books had consistently predicted the coming of a special Personage whom the Jews called the Messiah, or the Anointed One. The last of the Old Testament books was completed in the Hebrew language by the 5th century B.C. The Greek translation of the Old Testament was ready by 250 B.C. There are at least 300 references to the Messiah in the Old Testament out of which 61 specific fulfillments are quoted by Josh McDowell in his book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict - Vol I (Here's Life Publishers, Inc., Calif., 1991; pp.144-166). Using the science of probability, Peter Stoner says that 'the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled…eight (of these) prophecies is 1 in 1017'. After considering 48 prophecies, Stoner says, "…We find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be in 1 in 10157." (Science Speaks, Chicago: Moody Press, 1963). This piece of evidence has a two-way confirmation; it establishes that Old Testament as authoritative while confirming the uniqueness of Christ.
2. Few people would seriously question the historicity of Jesus. There has been a spate of publications in the recent past questioning the authenticity of Christ. The interesting fact is that these authors do not seem to agree with one another in details of their theses except in their sole aim of debunking the historical Christ. Over against this tendency, we see the near-total unanimity of the ancient documents, both biblical and extra-biblical, to bear witness to the Person of Jesus. F.F. Bruce, Rylands Professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester could say, "some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth', but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is an axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar." (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 5th Revised edition. Downer's Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1972). (The question of reliability of Scripture will be dealt with separately in a future issue of Truth For The Times).
3. It is reasonable to expect that if God were to become man, His entry into the world would be, to say the least, unusual. God could have made His advent into the world in such a spectacular way that there would have been no doubt that it had taken place. But, as argued earlier, God ad to identify Himself entirely with the human race. The incarnate God had to be both human and divine. This was accomplished in the wisdom of God in the virgin-birth of Christ. This event was one of the prophecies of the Old Testament about the Messiah (Isaiah 7:14) and it is stated by Matthew, the gospel-writer to the Jews, to have been fulfilled literally (1:23). This miraculous birth also ensured that the child would be free from the taint of original sin, an indispensable requirement for the task Jesus was required to perform on earth.
4. One of the characteristics of the synoptic Gospels which Christians are likely to miss is the matter-of-fact way in which they record the life-story of Jesus Christ. They do not use public-relations methods to promote the Master but are dispassionate and routine narratives of His life. It is wrong to think that the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) are strong statements about the deity of Christ. They really are cold-blooded (an in the case of Luke, investigative) accounts of what He said and did. Only John makes it a point to add his own comments in his gospel. Matthew would consider it his duty to his fellow-Jews to refer to prophetic passages of their Scriptures which find their fulfillment in Jesus. But it is impossible to miss how naturally the following facts emerge from the Gospels:
Firstly, the unique moral character of Jesus Christ stands indelibly printed on the pages of the narratives. Even His worst detractors could not point an accusing finger at Him. At His trial, it was difficult to find two witnesses who would agree to any of the false charges brought against Him. More importantly, Jesus Himself was self-consciously guilt-free of any sins of omission or commission. During the course of His life, He could ask the Pharisees, "Which one of you can convict Me of any sin?" (John 8:46). When He stood on trial before Pontius Pilate, one could not say who was on trial! Even Pilate came to the conclusion that there was nothing faulty, wrong or criminal about this strange Prisoner that has been brought before him and he pleaded repeatedly with the crowd to let Him go. Jesus lived an exemplary life. We need only to read some of the autobiographies of great men and women who have gone before us to see that they were mortals subject to the same moral frailties that you and I experience in our normal human life. However, we cannot but come to the conclusion that Jesus lived an exemplary moral life, which He constantly affirmed without a trace of pride.
Secondly, we shall try and analyse the teaching of Jesus Christ. We would find that His didactic content was of a value and quality vastly different from and superior to the philosophies and world views in the various cultures of our world. To demonstrate this dimension, I shall identify one crucial aspect of His teaching. He defined all virtue only in terms of relationships. He always linked vertical relationships with God with horizontal relationship with fellow human beings. Jesus placed equal emphases on both. Today's philosophies emphasise one or the other. We may have a philosophy which says that in order to be related to God, one has to cut oneself off from society. On the other hand, we have worldviews which say that by rightly relating to man, one can rightly relate to God. This critique would also apply to all philosophies which bring about an unhealthy dichotomy between the spiritual and material worlds. To the Jewish lawyer who asked Him the question, 'What is the greatest commandment?', Jesus indicated two commandments co-equal in status - "You shall love the Lord your God…You shall love your neighbour as yourself". This is unique among all the teaching that we have in the world, firstly because worship of God was taught by Jesus as one of intimate personal love-relationship. Worship is commonly taught in religious and ritualistic terms only. It is also assumed that a loving fellow-human is a natural human phenomenon. The second aspect of Jesus' teaching which is unique addresses this assumption. By putting the first commandment first, Jesus made it clear that we can selflessly love others only when our self is dealt with adequately by our relationship to God. At the same time, He also made it clear that our selfless love of others is the only demonstrable evidence that we truly love God. No amount of external religiosity as an expression of love to God can replace these relationships. By this master-stroke of a combination, He dealt with a third misapprehension that human relationships were relative and did not amount to much in the sight of God. In Jesus' teaching, relationship with God as well as relationship with one another were both spoken from an absolute stand-point. It is this dimension of teaching which is unique to Jesus Christ. It is out of these combinations of relationships that virtue of any kind could flow, e.g., rude and angry language against anyone was forbidden because it was tantamount to brutal murder (Matthew 5:21,22) and His standard of moral purity equated a lustful look with the physical sin of adultery (5:27,28). It is difficult to gainsay the conclusion that His teaching was exceptional.
Third, and inescapably, one has to conclude from the above two considerations that His claim about Himself was unique. He, as One Who claimed equality with God offered forgiveness to others. The Jews who were listening to His teaching had no doubt that He claimed to be God. Whether it was about forgiveness (Mark 2:5-7), His Messiahship (Matthew 26:63-66), or His pre-existence (John 8:58,59), His Jewish audience was convinced about His claim to deity and their leaders proceeded to have Him put to death.
5. Jesus by His life and teaching exemplified the all-important factor of God's love for us. He as God expressed forgiveness of sins to those who sought it. He proclaimed this forgiveness as the sole basis on which one could come into a personal relationship to the Father. He also made it clear to His disciples and others that the purpose of His life was to give it up as a 'ransom for many' (Matthew 20:28). (This ransom was effective sacrifice for sins offered to God only because he was sinless by nature [due to His unique birth] and by choice [because of His consistent obedience to the laws of God]). From the time Peter, His chief disciple made a bold confession about His true identity, He began to speak about the sacrificial death that He was to accomplish. When Peter tried to dissuade Him, received a stern rebuke (Matthew 16:16, 21-23). Jesus' death should never be confused with those of great men and women of history who were martyred for standing up for worthy causes.
6. The resurrection of Christ came as the legitimate climax to His unique life and death. During His life He had foretold His disciples directly (Matthew 16:21) and others parabolically (Matthew 12:40) about His resurrection from the dead. The resurrection is thus the crucial factor in establishing the exceptionality of Jesus Christ. Frank Morrison, a British lawyer of the 1930's undertook an expedition to collect circumstantial evidence to disprove the resurrection. (Such evidence is admissible in all courts of law in civilised countries to prove or disprove events of which there are no living eye-witnesses). When he finished sifting and analysing the evidence, he reached a stunning conclusion: that the resurrection had actually taken place! He has pieced all his evidence together in his book, Who Moved the Stone? The first chapter of this book is entitled, 'The Book that Refused to be Written'. In this chapter, he tells his own story of how he set out to disprove the resurrection and how he has ended up proving it. The remaining chapters of the book are devoted to a scholarly examination of the evidence. One of the factors that need to be considered in this context is the psychology of the disciples. They were 11 cowardly men who shut themselves up in an upper room because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders. Later, some of them returned to their original job of fishing apparently because they thought that the cause of their beloved Master was a lost one. What galvanized them into action so much so that within their own lifetime, much of the then-known world could hear the message of Christ? Some of them paid for His message with their lives. Would they have done so if the resurrection was a hoax? If the resurrection were not true, then Christianity would be the biggest fraud perpetrated on the human race!
7. What about the influence Jesus has left over the world? The great historian, Kenneth Scott Latourette, says: "As the centuries pass, the evidence is accumulating that, measured by His effect on history, Jesus is the most influential life ever lived on this planet. That influence appears to be mounting". (American Historical Review, LIV, January, 1949). William Lecky, a historian and a skeptic says: "…It was reserved for Christianity to present to the world an ideal character, which through all the changes of eighteen centuries has inspired the hearts of men with an impassioned love; has shown itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, temperaments and conditions; has been not only the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice; and has exercised so deep an influence that it may be truly said that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists. This has indeed been the wellspring of whatever is best and purest in the Christian life. Amid all the sins and failings, amid all the priestcraft and persecution and fanaticism that have defaced the Church, it has preserved in the character and example of its founder, an enduring principle of regeneration." (History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne, New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1903). It would be reasonable to conclude that the source of that influence could not have been but exceptional. One cannot think of a better conclusion to this essay than this quote from C.S. Lewis: "You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."