Originally posted by rwingett
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."
All I can do is to encourage you to look beyond the narrow parameters you have constructed for yourself. Research what the Jesus Seminar is saying. Research the historical Jesus. Research the Q gospel. Research the formative years of Christianity and see how differently it could have turned o ature of Jesus' Teachings and How They Have Been Corrupted, by Obery M. Hendricks, Jr.[/b]
Speaking of my own parameters, lets look at the Seminars parameters in regards to how the Seminar chose to reveal what the truth is about Jesus is. Wiki says,
"The Jesus Seminar, like the translation comittee who created the KJV and the Revised Standard Version of the Bible and the Novum Testamentum Greece, chose voting as the most effecient means of determining consensus in an assembled group. The system also lent itself to publicicty, which the Seminar actively pursued.
The fellows used a "bead system" to vote on the authenticity of about 500 statements and events. The color of the bead represented how sure the Fellow was that a saying or act was or was not authentic.
Red beads - indicate the voter believed Jesus did say the passage quoted, or something very much like the passage (3 points)
Pink beads - indicate the voter believed Jesus probably said something like the passage, (2 points)
Grey beads - indicate the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage, but it contains Jesus' ideas (1 point)
Black beads - indicate the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage - it comes from later admirers or a different tradition (0 points)
So what did they conclude?
1. Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great.
2. His mother's name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph.
3. Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem.
4. Jesus was an itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts.
4. Jesus pracitced healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic.
5. He did not walk on water, feed the multitude with loaves and fishes, change water into wine or raise Lazarus from the dead.
6. Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans
7. He was executed as a public nuisance, not for claiming to be the Son of God.
8. The empty tomb is a fiction - Jesus was not raised from the dead.
9. Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter, and Mary.
Who knows how they arrived at such decisions unless one actually runs out and buys the book. However, they seem to have stepped on the toes of pretty much everyone of faith in regards to these conclusions. For example, Chrisitians no longer can think of Jesus as divine but a mere mortal who was simply "enlightened". Muslims must throw out the notion that Christ was not crucified on the cross. Also, Peter, his chosen disciple, actually believed that Christ was resurrected and should not be considered a true Muslim etc.
The refreshing aspect to all of this is that they feel compelled to believe that Christ had "healing powers" of some sort. Also, I share the belief that his appointed disciple Peter believed that Christ has arisen. Perhaps they have more conclusive reasons for why than I do in believing such things.
Forgive me if I find these finding suspect. After all, who were the judges? It seems that a few members were reputable scholars, however, most are relatively unknown or undistinguished in the field of Biblical studies. In fact, one such panel member, Paul Verhoeven, holds a Ph.D in mathamatics and Physics and is best known as a film director. In fact, of the 74 "scholars" listed in thier publication "the five gospels", only 14 would be leading figures in the field of the NT. More than half are basically unknowns, who have published only 2 or 3 articles. Eighteen of the fellows have published nothing at all in NT sutdies. Also of concern, 36 of those scholars, almost half, have a degree from or currently teach at one of 3 schools, Harvard, Claremont, or Vanderbilt, all considered to favor "liberal" interpretations of the NT. If you think you can completly divorce raw data from personal bias I think your are kidding yourself. After all, ALL raw data has an element of interpretation including theology. I think the kicker, however, was that the Seminar sought the attention of the media with regards to their findings and was aired on ABC "The Search for Jesus" and was hosted by Peter Jennings. How many reputable scholars do that?
However, my main beef is that Jesus wrote NOTHING about himself. Therefore, all we have to go on are the 12 that he had chosen. What did they beleive? After all, he chose them for a reason. Apparently they agree that Peter thought him to have been resurrected!! Here is what one critic said on the matter.
"Craig Bomberg notes that if the Jesus Seminar's findings are to be believed then "it requires the assumption that someone, about a generation removed from the events in question, radically transformed the authentic information about Jesus that was circulating at the time, supreimposed a body of material four times as large, fabricated almost entirely out of whole cloth, while the church suffered sufficient collective amnesia to accept the transformation as legitimate."
Therefore, I would assume that the scholars in question should instead focus their attention on the 12 apostles whom Jesus chose since they are the ONLY living testament to what he was about. All I can say is where did the 12 go and what did they do once Jesus had left them? Did they not all have a radical transformation and go throughout all the earth proclaiming the "good news"? Did they not also give their lives for what they believed? Historically I think this is a given. The question then becomes why?
So after hearing my rebuttal, all those who have read it please vote using the proper voting method as mentioned above. Remember a red bead is 3 points, a pink bead is 2 points, a grey bead is one point and a black bead is no points.
10 Jul '07 04:07
Jesus Seminar
Back to Top