The Jesus Seminar

[Mike]

Never one to say who will be one to receive salvation or damnation on Judgment Day, I'll just say Robert Funk and those to conceived of this blasphemous initiative are going to have to answer for it. I'm starting this thread in after seeing another member explain that he embraces it.

1 Peter 1
"23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. 24 For, “All men are like grass,
and all their glory is like the flowers of the field;
the grass withers and the flowers fall,
25 but the word of the Lord stands forever.â€

This was another group of individuals who pridefully couldn't accept scripture as inspired and led a highly biased initiative to re-invent Jesus according to their liking. The result was the tearing down of the True Jesus and creating one that they had their own vision of who had no Divinity. It is very deceptive in it's name, suggesting that this was an honest effort to know the "true" Jesus.

A group of "theologians" were tasked with voting on each individual statement made by Christ to determine if He actually Spoke them with colored beads.
Red beads - He undoubtedly said them
Pink beads - He probably said them
Grey beads - He didn't use these words, but they might convey His meaning
Black beads - He did not say them

They concluded that 82% of the Words Spoke by Jesus in scripture are fraudulent, leaving only 18% being true statements. They concluded that:

• there was no virgin birth
• there was no resurrection of Christ
• He didn't perform the miracles depicted
• of the Lord's Prayer Jesus modeled for His disciples, only 2 words were likely said by Him: "Our Father". The rest of the prayer was made up by the writers or changed over time.

The premise was that if something is inexplicable scientifically, such as a miracle or His resurrection, it couldn't be valid. This premise drove their agenda to their end goal. It not only drove their agenda in de-Throning Jesus, it drove, and continues to drive, honest people away from our Living Lord.

 

[Oats]

this really frustrates me Mike,

Why do people go to so many lengths to tear down our Lord Jesus

it seems that people don't want to believe...

what do they base their findings on?


I hope they repent....

 

[handy]

I hope they repent as well.

I do think that the Holy Spirit will speak in the heart of believers the truth about groups like this. I remember as a very young Christian, young in age as well as in Christ, I was only 13 at the time, I picked up a "bible" at a house that I was babysitting at. I became a Christian while reading the Gospel of John and saw that this was a "study bible" with all kinds of notes and essays on the Scriptures. Well, just reading through what the writers had to say about the gospel of John, that it wasn't written by any disciple, that it most likely was added very late and that the events in the "gospel" most likely never took place, the Holy Spirit moved me to just put the thing down. Which I did.

Their "determination" process is laughable...upon what basis do they even think they are making a rational determination as opposed to just going with their personal opinion?

 

[theLords]

A group of "theologians" were tasked with voting on each individual statement made by Christ to determine if He actually Spoke them with colored beads.
Red beads - He undoubtedly said them
Pink beads - He probably said them
Grey beads - He didn't use these words, but they might convey His meaning
Black beads - He did not say them

Do these "theologians" consider themselves Christians? I simply don't understand why anyone who doesn't believe in Christ's Divinity would call themselves Christian? It doesn't make any sense

 

[farouk]

Fact is, with many academics, faith just doesn't come into the equation.

Better to stick with God's Word.

 

[Sinthesis]

The real question is are we as Christians supposed to get all offended and act as the irate Muslim does when one blasphemes Mohammad? God forbid! We are to love our ignorant and self satisfied 'Jesus Seminar' neighbors just as we are to love all of those who post dubious 'Christian teachings' on this forum. The fact that some people choose a path that rejects God should be no surprise. However, those in darkness need light, not condemnation. Therefore engage their arguments, not them.

 

[doubting thomas]

Never one to say who will be one to receive salvation or damnation on Judgment Day, I'll just say Robert Funk and those to conceived of this blasphemous initiative are going to have to answer for it. I'm starting this thread in after seeing another member explain that he embraces it.

i never said i embraced it. why is everyone putting words in my mouth? i very specifically and in italics wrote "the jesus seminar has done some good work. "

im just as likely to "embrace" n.t. wright or william lane craig as i am funk, crossan or amstrong.

but if you are going to start a thread on the jesus seminar, you might as well flesh out your critics. show where their scholarship is wrong, where there methods are wrong, how their conclusions are wrong. (and you can start with a response to that link)there are volumes and volumes of scholarship criticizing the jesus seminar. give us the precise. let this thread be educational.

It not only drove their agenda in de-Throning Jesus, it drove, and continues to drive, honest people away from our Living Lord.

this is a fair criticism, but the work of people like john shelby spong and john dominic crossan have actually also brought non believers closer to god.

 

[doubting thomas]

Their "determination" process is laughable...upon what basis do they even think they are making a rational determination as opposed to just going with their personal opinion?

* Embarrassment: A fact or event that appears to cause embarrassment to the theology of the gospel authors is less likely to have been invented by them than a fact or event that bolsters their theology.

* Discontinuity: A fact or event that does not appear to have had any basis in earlier tradition is less likely to have been invented by the gospel authors than an event that may have been predicated in an earlier tradition.

* Multiple Attestation: A fact or event that appears to have been preserved down multiple lines of independent tradition is more likely to be true than one that is only preserved down a single line.

* Coherence: A fact or event that appears to be consistent with our present understanding of the historical context is more likely to be true than one which appears to be at odds with it.

* Rejection and Execution: A fact or event that looks as though it might provide an realistic explanation for the rejection or execution of Jesus is more likely to be true than the more tendentious explanations offered consciously by the gospel authors (e.g. divine providence, the Jews being in league with the devil etc.). (This criterion is less strong as it presumes historicity of the execution to begin with, but given that the execution of Jesus appears to satisfy each of the four previous criteria, it's based on a fairly solid foundation so far as second-order criteria go.)


see: E.P. Sanders "the historical figure of jesus", Dale C. Allison Jr. "the historical christ and the theological jesus", Paula Fredricksen "from jesus to christ", N.T. Wright "jesus and the victory of god", etc

i would personally love to see a well defined critique of Bart Ehrman's "jesus - apocalyptic prophet of the new millennium". i've seen the man debate willaim lane craig (and ive seen wright debate crossan), but i'd like your critique of erhman's work. it would be most instructive

 

[doubting thomas]

Fact is, with many academics, faith just doesn't come into the equation.

Better to stick with God's Word.

but that's why this is the "apologetics" forum. apologetics is a field theology that presents a rational basis for the christian faith, to defend the faith against objections and misrepresentation, and to expose error within other religions and world views (the jesus seminar).

 

[doubting thomas]

The real question is are we as Christians supposed to get all offended and act as the irate Muslim does when one blasphemes Mohammad? God forbid! We are to love our ignorant and self satisfied 'Jesus Seminar' neighbors just as we are to love all of those who post dubious 'Christian teachings' on this forum. The fact that some people choose a path that rejects God should be no surprise. However, those in darkness need light, not condemnation. Therefore engage their arguments, not them.

i applaud you for a great comment.

 

[Mike]

i never said i embraced it. why is everyone putting words in my mouth?

You're being unnecessarily sensitive. I purposely didn't mention you by name. Most people wouldn't have even known who I was referring to if you hadn't responded like this, which was by design. Did you expect me to detail everything in the OP so we had nothing to discuss? You're right, there are plenty of critics with commentary on the Jesus Seminar for very good reasons. And there is very sound reasoning for their rejection of the methodology used and their agenda. This will come as time permits by me or if others post them. The Bible has been attacked for centuries and stands every test or challenge submitted. I'm not worried about supposed theologians creating harm of it. I just wouldn't want to be counted among them when standing before the Lord, and it concerns me that some are being lead down a path of darkness.

 

[Alabaster]

this is a fair criticism, but the work of people like john shelby spong and john dominic crossan have actually also brought non believers closer to god.

Who the heck are they?

God is spelled with a capital 'G'.

 

[Drew]

Fact is, with many academics, faith just doesn't come into the equation.

Better to stick with God's Word.

I do not disagree with your assertion that some academics are dismissive of faith.

However, I would caution readers to not buy into the entirely false dualism that suggest that faith and careful academic inquiry are necessarily at odds with one another.

 

[Drew]

Hello doubting thomas:

The criteria that you provide seem entirely reasonable to me. It appears that you are familiar with NT Wright - I make no pretense, I am a huge fan of NT Wright. You should know that Wright certainly embraces the "discontinuity" criterion and uses it to argue for the substantial veracity of the New Testament. To put it briefly, Wright argues that much of the stuff in the New Testament is indeed substantially historical precisely because such material constitutes a surprising "departure" from tradition.

Of course, Wright also plays the "opposite side" of this criterion as well - arguing that in order for a teaching about Jesus to be true, it has to at least "fit coherently" within the context of the time. This line of argument seems to map to the "coherence" criteria you mention.

I suspect you will agree that some of these criteria play off against each other. So, for example, Wright will argue that the things Jesus is alleged to have said (and the things written about him) are true both because they are "surprising" and yet also because they are contextually "plausible". I think we will agree that these are complicated matters.

Anyway, I hope you will not be discouraged by some of the "fundy" rejoinders you are getting here.

 

[Bazz1040]

Never one to say who will be one to receive salvation or damnation on Judgment Day, I'll just say Robert Funk and those to conceived of this blasphemous initiative are going to have to answer for it. I'm starting this thread in after seeing another member explain that he embraces it.

1 Peter 1
"23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. 24 For, “All men are like grass,
and all their glory is like the flowers of the field;
the grass withers and the flowers fall,
25 but the word of the Lord stands forever.â€

This was another group of individuals who pridefully couldn't accept scripture as inspired and led a highly biased initiative to re-invent Jesus according to their liking. The result was the tearing down of the True Jesus and creating one that they had their own vision of who had no Divinity. It is very deceptive in it's name, suggesting that this was an honest effort to know the "true" Jesus.

A group of "theologians" were tasked with voting on each individual statement made by Christ to determine if He actually Spoke them with colored beads.
Red beads - He undoubtedly said them
Pink beads - He probably said them
Grey beads - He didn't use these words, but they might convey His meaning
Black beads - He did not say them

They concluded that 82% of the Words Spoke by Jesus in scripture are fraudulent, leaving only 18% being true statements. They concluded that:

• there was no virgin birth
• there was no resurrection of Christ
• He didn't perform the miracles depicted
• of the Lord's Prayer Jesus modeled for His disciples, only 2 words were likely said by Him: "Our Father". The rest of the prayer was made up by the writers or changed over time.

The premise was that if something is inexplicable scientifically, such as a miracle or His resurrection, it couldn't be valid. This premise drove their agenda to their end goal. It not only drove their agenda in de-Throning Jesus, it drove, and continues to drive, honest people away from our Living Lord.

My question is why would anyone value anything these people have to say? I mean Jesus warned us (if we are listing to what He said over what men say) false men of God would come and deceive many. So for me it’s a no-brainer......they have no more credibility than if Satan had said what they say himself......these men are simply messengers of Satan send out to deceive and to put doubt in God's word.

 

[Bazz1040]

Do these "theologians" consider themselves Christians? I simply don't understand why anyone who doesn't believe in Christ's Divinity would call themselves Christian? It doesn't make any sense

this really frustrates me Mike,

Why do people go to so many lengths to tear down our Lord Jesus

it seems that people don't want to believe...

what do they base their findings on?


I hope they repent....

Don't you understand, haven't read what Jesus said that false Christians would be among the true believers? Are you all not familiar with parable of the wheat and the tare?

 

[cyberjosh]

this is a fair criticism, but the work of people like john shelby spong and john dominic crossan have actually also brought non believers closer to god.

*Gasp* You mentioned the s-word: ...Spong! You can read my assessment of Mr Spong here.

P.S. You seem to be interested quite a bit in Theology and I noticed that you said you listened to some debates between theologians & scholars before. I also like listening to debates of those kind. I've listened to a few from William Lane Craig and I like his position on a lot of issues. What apologetics works have you read (if any) by authors that defend the biblical tradition? For more layman audiences, have you ever read works by Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel? I like reading Lee Strobel's book because it acts like an anthology of different scholars' opinions that I can then take and further research those scholars' views on my own (with or without Strobel's assistance). Beyond that I just normally go straight to the source and read the scholar's works.

 

[Scotth1960]

Never one to say who will be one to receive salvation or damnation on Judgment Day, I'll just say Robert Funk and those to conceived of this blasphemous initiative are going to have to answer for it. I'm starting this thread in after seeing another member explain that he embraces it.

1 Peter 1
"23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. 24 For, “All men are like grass,
and all their glory is like the flowers of the field;
the grass withers and the flowers fall,
25 but the word of the Lord stands forever.â€

This was another group of individuals who pridefully couldn't accept scripture as inspired and led a highly biased initiative to re-invent Jesus according to their liking. The result was the tearing down of the True Jesus and creating one that they had their own vision of who had no Divinity. It is very deceptive in it's name, suggesting that this was an honest effort to know the "true" Jesus.

A group of "theologians" were tasked with voting on each individual statement made by Christ to determine if He actually Spoke them with colored beads.
Red beads - He undoubtedly said them
Pink beads - He probably said them
Grey beads - He didn't use these words, but they might convey His meaning
Black beads - He did not say them

They concluded that 82% of the Words Spoke by Jesus in scripture are fraudulent, leaving only 18% being true statements. They concluded that:

• there was no virgin birth
• there was no resurrection of Christ
• He didn't perform the miracles depicted
• of the Lord's Prayer Jesus modeled for His disciples, only 2 words were likely said by Him: "Our Father". The rest of the prayer was made up by the writers or changed over time.

The premise was that if something is inexplicable scientifically, such as a miracle or His resurrection, it couldn't be valid. This premise drove their agenda to their end goal. It not only drove their agenda in de-Throning Jesus, it drove, and continues to drive, honest people away from our Living Lord.

Dear Friends, This Jesus Seminar is the result of Protestant Reformation methodology, which leaves us with Sola Scriptura, and each individual Protestant alone with the text of the Bible, with no tradition to guide him how to correctly interpret it. He falls into disbelief, not "knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God" (the HOLY SPIRIT Who proceedeth from the Father John 15:26 Who guideth into all truth John 16:13). Thus we have the "green beads" of SOLA SCRIPTURISM, the BIBLE ALONE-ISM, each INDIVIDUAL MAN WOMAN OR CHILD PRIVATELY INTERPRETING THE BIBLE "FOR THEMSELVES/BY THEMSELVES".
IN ERIE PA USA SCOTTH1960 Scott R. Harrington

 

[Bazz1040]

Dear Friends, This Jesus Seminar is the result of Protestant Reformation methodology, which leaves us with Sola Scriptura, and each individual Protestant alone with the text of the Bible, with no tradition to guide him how to correctly interpret it. He falls into disbelief, not "knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God" (the HOLY SPIRIT Who proceedeth from the Father John 15:26 Who guideth into all truth John 16:13). Thus we have the "green beads" of SOLA SCRIPTURISM, the BIBLE ALONE-ISM, each INDIVIDUAL MAN WOMAN OR CHILD PRIVATELY INTERPRETING THE BIBLE "FOR THEMSELVES/BY THEMSELVES".
IN ERIE PA USA SCOTTH1960 Scott R. Harrington

That is one of the reasons why I encourage Christians to study the Bible for themselves. One never knows who has influened the person that is preaching.