A short look at the nations through Bible history
Moses is 1,500 years before Jesus and this is what God says of the nations to Israel. Deut. 4:6-8:For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the LORD our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this law which I set before you this day?
We see later, even when Moses is given the commandments that he is told not to worship as the nations that surround them. So the question is ... How far back in mankinds history are we to go to find this so called true monotheism.
Isaiah 43:3 For I am the LORD your God, The Holy One of Israel, your Savior; v:10-12 "You are My witnesses," says the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior. I have declared and saved, I have proclaimed, And there was no foreign god among you; Therefore you are My witnesses." Does the Bible say another nations name for his witnesses besides Israel? Does he mention another nations god as himself? Isa. 54:5 Holy One of Israel; he is called the God of the whole earth. Does God name any other nation he is the holy one of? No he does not.
But Kikawa wants us to believe the nations received a separate revelation from Israel of the true God, HOW? You have to ignore the clear teaching of the Bible to say this. Deuteronomy 7:6-7 "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth.
He minimizes the God of Israel as if this has no bearing on history. God covenanted with Israel; no other nation did he do this with. Gentiles are grafted into the covenant. Kikawa challenges this with his hypothesis of God revealing himself to other cultures, even forming them. There is only one olive tree to be grafted in as the covenant.
Rom. 11:17-18 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
They are not a wild branch but a wild tree unto itself. This other olive tree is wild by nature; they were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree (v.24).
This is like saying we have had a large olive tree that gives the best fruit, and someone finding some other trees in the wild that bear no fruit then says its a tree comparable to the olive tree; Israels covenant;.
These cultures and gods are separate trees unto themselves.
Ephesians 2:12-13 tells us the Gentiles needed to be grafted into the commonwealth of Israel (the covenants).
They were without Christ, having no hope and without God in the world. Apparently Kikawa does not think this is true as kikawa has found monotheism among nations; therefore they knew God.
The Lord says to Israel the nation, inLeviticus 20:24 I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the peoples And you shall be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy, and have separated you from the peoples , that you should be Mine.
When the Bible teaches the gentiles do not know God, this is the majority of the world; the Jewish people being a minority did learn of and know God.
He is making Jesus into the son of God of all the religions, Jesus is the son of God the savior to all people, not their religion god[s]. Jesus came not as a Levitical priest, for the Jews only, but is from the tribe of Judah of the order of Melchezedic a priest for all people, for both Jews and Gentiles. But there had to be a new covenant for the Gentiles to be grafted in.
God is unknown and must deliver direct specific revelation for someone to know him personally; they cannot learn this from nature (Rom.1:20).
Kikawa says God was involved in shaping the other nations cultures. Not according to the true God.
The Mission Statement on his website: The Creator God of the Bible is not a foreign God. He loves indigenous people and has been a part of their history and culture from the beginning.
God is foreign to everyone who does not know him; He did not shape other peoples culture.
2 Samuel 7:23-24: And who is like Your people, like Israel, the one nation on the earth whom God went to redeem for Himself as a people, to make for Himself a name.
He says this is to To facilitate the reconciliation of indigenous peoples to their Creator. The point is that he considers many creator god[s] all the same, so he says Jesus Christ is the Son of the Creator of all people and He loves all people equally. To let indigenous people know that God lovingly created them exactly as He wanted them; that He has been with them and loved them throughout their history, that He left many treasures and worthy traditions within their culture.
Is God responsible for the worlds cultures and customs? Did he leave anything like he created with Israel? He offers no proof that God has been a part of their history and culture, he cant because the Bible does not say so.
But one of these proofs would apparently be with the Hindus. Padinjarekara, Christ in Ancient Vedas, p. 153, p.42 is quoted 3 times in Kikawas book.
Is Jesus found in other religions books?
The term Christ, (Messiah) is exclusive to Judaic Christian teaching, so if it is found in other books it is borrowed.
Dr. Padinjarekara writes that the ancient Rig Vedas, written between 2000 B.C. and 1200 B. C., reveal much evidence of a belief in One Creator God.' The most ancient records of even the Hindu. (Introduction p.21)
Kikawa writes:He is the Indian Prajapati, the Supreme God who sacrificed Himself. He is the Polynesian Iku ('Io), the King of Kings in heaven who was broken for others. He is Jesus Christ, who said, "this is my body, which is broken for you." (1 Corinthians 11:24) He is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Revelations 13:8) He is Jesus Christ, not the Son of the God of the white man, but the Son of the God of all men. He is Jesus Christ, not the long awaited Savior of the white man, but the long awaited Savior of all men. (p.166 Perpetuated in Righteousness.)
Who said Jesus was the savior of the white men? Sounds like a racial reaction to me. How about Jesus being Jewish (Semitic)? I do not see this presented. I see Jesus is made to be Indian, Hawaiian, Korean, Japanese, Chinese...
As far as Im concerned Jesus being called the Indian Prajapati, the Supreme God is a Canard, a fallacy.
Some Indian believers show this is to be completely false http://freeebooks.itz4u.com/?p=61http://www.wrpf.org/whoweare.htm http://www.wrpf.org/Jesus-is-not-a-hindu-god.htm
Christ did not quote the writings of any other religion, and neither did they quote Christ. In Luke 24:44 Jesus referred to Moses, the prophets, and Psalms of the Old Testament, Judaism, not other religious scriptures. Kikawa wants us to believe that the true God spoke to the Hindus about his son that was to come thousands of years later. Nonsense! Jesus is not the Indian Prajapati! In an early creation myth Prajapati as an almost unwilling participant in the role of creation. It is said that he was alone in the vastness, and to ease his loneliness, he split his self into two distinct parts: man and woman. They then procreated and from them was born the race of man.
Encyclopedia Britannica says: According to one of the stories of creation, Prajapati produced the universe and all its beings after first preparing himself by undergoing tapas (ascetic practices); other stories allude to his own creation from the primal waters. His female emanation, who aided him in the creation of other beings, was Vac, the personification of the sacred word, but sometimes his female partner is given as Ushas, the dawn, who is also regarded as his daughter. (Vac- the Hindu goddess of learning and the arts.)
Prajapati is linked to the sacrificial root of creation "either by continually creating living creatures out of the sacrifices to the gods (Taittiriya Brahmana 1, 8; 2, 1), or as being himself the sacrifice from which life is sustained: 'Prajapati is sacrifice, for he created it in his own self-expression'" (Sarapatha Brahmana 11, 1; 8, 2) In relation to the thirty-three gods in the classical system, Prajapati was considered the thirty-fourth, embracing and including the others. The quotes of Pajapati have to be interpreted by its own religion not recontextualized to Christianity.
This is not at all like the Bible or Jesus, and to try to force him into another religion is absurd. We see a new universal religion being developed, that finds Jesus in other cultures, in their books and divorces him from the Hebrew Scriptures. The only one I know that can possibly engineer this (apart from human ingenuity) is the Devil who strategizes far in advance for his future corruption and assault against God and His word.
Is Prajapati Jewish? A Hebrew? No, but Kikawa says he is the Indian Prajapati. How can Jesus be the son of another cultures god(s)? Those who call upon the name of the Lord (Jesus YHWH) will be saved. Are you going to tell someone from India to call on Prajapati, or in Hawaii Io, or in China Shang Ti or some other nations god to be saved? How foolish is this; how unbiblical is this. This is insane for any Christian to believe!
To make the other cultures like Israel, to claim they know the true God is not only nonsense, it becomes blasphemy; and those who have allowed it to come into their church need to be corrected or rebuked (depending on there reaction).
What Kikawa is doing, is finding any being that can be called a supreme god, a creator; and then applies Jesus to it. By the time he is done he will have made Jesus the son of all gods, instead of him being the only begotten Son of God, born through Mary by the God of Israel.
What I have noticed in his book, Kikawa does not distinguish the Hebrew people as the Bible does but only relates to them as the Hawaiian legends, which correspond to the Hebrew (or any other culture). It was the Hebrew people who kept the "book" intact, and it was the Hebrew people through whom the Messiah, Savior, would come. He mentions Israel as those that kept the book whole. Actually God declared the whole revelation to them. All the Jewish prophets century after century had God speaking to them to arrive at what they know. There is a but to this matter . according to Kikawas universal theory, it was not necessary. ... but Richardson clearly shows that God confirmed to other peoples the Good News of His Son. He lists many incidences of the One True God speaking through a vision or dream to the "holy man" or priest of these peoples (p.159-160 Perpetuated in Righteousness)
Don Richardson apparently approves of what Kikawa is saying and doing; hes on his advisory board. So Richardson should be questioned as well in this universal god theory.
Its is for this reason Kikawa can make him universal, as if every culture has ownership of the Son of God.
With Israel taking center stage at the end of the age, we have missionaries like Daniel Kikawa getting the people to put their eyes reviving their ancient gods of the nations.
Psalm 147:19-20: He declares His word to Jacob, his statutes and His judgments to Israel. He has not dealt thus with any nation; and as for His judgments, they have not known them.Jacob is a synonym of Israel (the 12 tribes). In other words, no other nation was given a revelation of God, ONLY Israel.
How can he reconcile these gods with the true God when the true God calls them false gods? Judges 2:12: they followed other gods from among the gods of the people who were all around them, and they bowed down to them; and they provoked the LORD to anger.
This is why I say he does not adhere to the Christian distinctive; he minimalizes Israel and uplifts other nations gods to equality with the true God of Israel. One is not finding this in the Bible but has to step away from the Bible to form a new mythos for the church to live in. This falls short of the real research these other authors he quotes did. His speculation is over the Bible; to say there is a purer more ancient story to all the histories gods is flat out wrong.
God sent his son through their culture is a LIE and is building the antichrist doctrine of a one-world religion.
The past is our example: Deut. 31:16 And the LORD said to Moses: "and this people will rise and play the harlot with the gods of the foreigners of the land
Kikawa on p.31 states Research is of supreme importance because, many times, Satan poses as the creator god of all. Thats right and you are promoting this very idea by saying these are not false gods of the nations when God said the gods of the nations are idols.
With missionary translators putting a cultures ancient gods name into a bible translation for their language, this becomes a deadly combination of changing historic Christianity. We do not see one example of other gods or cultures religious past being accepted in the Bible.
This new way of evangelism is an attack on His revelation to man by the Hebrew prophets through the Bible.
I would rather proclaim the God of Israel alone as the true God, and all others are false then try to apply ancient gods to be YHWH and risk judgment.
The God of Israel stands alone and he says so. These are other elohim (gods), not Yahweh Elohim.
It is not love or truth to tell them their god had a son, it is deception, a lie. Wake up people!
p.6 Why none of this is possible