For such a small and obscure group they have made a large impact on secular society by which the news media has catered to their controversial position as if they had something significant to add to the world of academia by their skeptical views of biblical orthodoxy.
The media in turn is not as concerned with truth as much as they are interested in the sensationalism that comes with these conspiracy theories. The general audience prefers novelty and concepts of the mysterious and therefore they find these issues intriguing due to the marketing nature of the entertainment industry.
Anyway not only does the seminar muddy the waters of the gospels by questioning the biblical Jesus but they do so in such a way where it casts a shadow of doubt on most everything that the bible gives us about the person and work of Christ and therefore through reductionism the gospels can no longer be taken seriously based on their analysis.
To begin with their platform is primarily one of anti-supernaturalism and everything is filtered through this medium of belief or should I say unbelief. After all we live in a modern scientific age of enlightenment and these kinds of ideas aren’t conducive to evolutionary man. Yet in spite of this propaganda there remains a God concept by which intelligent and educated people have been counted among the ranks of the religious.
This isn’t a matter of some backwoodsy ignorant people or just some transient cultural experience but rather these are people that have made sincere and intelligent decisions about God.
That’s do in part because such questions as morality, ultimate purpose and meaning, origins, and mortality come from the deepest level of our psyche and though science would attempt to answer these relevant questions or eradicate them they have miserably fallen short of giving us anything concretely significant.
There is a real sense of “otherness” in our universe which shouts so loudly that we have to deaden our ear follicles to the noise of belief and this has been accomplished as we have been subjected to the constant bombardment of anti-religious rhetoric through the brainwashing of naturalism.
Actually the more we are able to see the complexities of scientific knowledge the more convinced we should be in visualizing life as the handiwork of God as based on the elements of design versus a mindless randomness of chance. I actually find that it takes a blind leap of faith to believe on an order without intelligence. An orchestra without a conductor. A painting without an artist. A building without a builder.
How can life be mobilized by chance when chance is nothing nor does it have any power or substance but it is only useful when contemplating mathematical probabilities. It amazes me that the human mind is the most complex component of the universe and is able to figure out great things and yet it overlooks the very simple matters of general revelation through an awe inspiring landscape. The problem isn’t a lack of insight but rather a suppression of knowledge of which mankind is guilty of.
There has always been an continue to be theistic scientists who hold to a biblical view of creationism apart from macroevolutionary theory and so we can’t just relocate God to the pre scientific age and yet society would prefer to keep these witnesses silent by assigning them to the fringes of their cultural milieu in preference to elevating scientific theory to the level of a god. Anyway I have written more about evolution in this post:
jesusandjews.com/wordpress/2010/06/07/the-evolution-of-man/
Ok, I am going to stop here as my concern is not to present philosophical arguments for God but rather to give a general propositional framework for discussing personal filters which shape our worldview.
When speaking of the bible and more specifically the miraculous this is where many of the objections come in when deciphering the works of Jesus.
Yet if we can build a bridge towards a God concept then it no longer becomes so difficult to establish the possibilities of the metaphysical and super-nature phenomena. Signs and wonders can become plausible instead of merely mythical or superstitious.
So whether it is the God dilemma or the supernatural, mankind cannot adequately refute these concepts but rather is reduced to taking a middle position of agnosticism.
Until man can exhaust all knowledge and resources then these possibilities cannot be ruled out and if a person is open to looking at the evidence there is a plausibility that supersedes it negation.
If God is real then the story line of Jesus doesn’t necessarily become so far-fetched either. Therefore Jesus does not have to be categorized as one who was portrayed as a mythical figure much like the ancient gods and goddesses of pagan cultures who were not even real persons.
Though we might all agree that miracles as recorded in the bible aren’t a part of our day to day experience this however does not demand that we must identify them as impossible as we are not able to fully discern these matters due to our limitation of experiential knowledge in exhausting the cosmos. After all to make such a statement it would take a omniscient and omnipotent being who could only know the answer to that matter.
Science has only scratched the surface of knowledge and therefore by no means have they scoured the entire universe. So whether it be the secrets that are reserved in the depths of the oceans or the outer limits of space mankind’s portal of knowledge has a very limited view to reality.
Science is based largely in theories and it remains in a constant state of flux. Yet what I find fascinating is how dogmatic scientists can be on their findings in opposition to such concepts by having a matter of fact attitude against anything that smacks of God or the supernatural. Though these matters may sometimes elude the physical properties of normal sense perception how is this any different than what we knew prior to the advent of modern instrumentation?
Also to state that the scientific community at large takes an unbiased approach to scientific inquiry is not even conceivable and is oxymoronic to its field by formulating the cart of deduction before the horse of induction. So that whatever is coming through the lens of the microscope or telescope is perceived and interpreted as based on the filtering of preconditioned presuppositions.
So which way do you think the scientific community is slanted towards on these matters? Would they be predisposed towards wanting to prove these conceptual ideas as right or wrong? They know from a job security position that they would be laughed and ridiculed right out of their professional careers and jeopardize their livelihood if they would even consider for a moment the possibilities of such ideas to begin with.
Bottom line the natural scientists has just as much to do with philosophical views against God as does the theologian who favorably answers towards the reality of God.
In moving on about the miracles of Jesus we aren’t talking about the manifestation of fable like stories which portray imaginary figures like unicorns but rather we are looking at real life imagery. Like the miracle of changing the water into wine in which we can identify with the water, wine, wedding banquet, people in attendance, vessels to hold the wine, etc as well as it occurring in a setting which can be identified as a real historical time along with its location or space. This isn’t the problem in dealing with real things or objects but rather it has to do with the transformation of one natural substance into another natural substance even though wine is already around 80% water.
Anyway this wasn’t some magicians trick either as such sophistication to this story would be nonsensical.
Even outside sources like the Talmud which are not sympathetic to Jesus give some credit to Him as first of all being a real person and then secondly stating that He was able to perform signs and wonders even though His actions were wrongly credited to the inspiration of the demonic.
Also I think when contemplating all this that there are psychological reasons why people would want to reject all these possibilities and it would come down to the responsibility and repercussions of such knowledge.
Take for instance all these reality shows on television that deal with the paranormal by making it an alleged science and though we can or want to believe in the spiritual entities of evil we don’t want to grapple with the antithetical aspect of this same concept because on one hand we find it entertaining while on the other it becomes convicting to our conscious.
When contemplating God and all the possibilities related to such a being mankind responds with hostility as he wants to be the king or master of his own universe and destiny. Humanity strives for dominance and autonomy and therefore the idea of a sovereign God intrudes on our individualism which in turn contradicts a personal agenda therefore making God a threatening obstacle by which to overcome.
As a Christian I have noticed that its ok to generalize with agnostics about God until you mention the name of Jesus which now puts a face on God as someone who is identifiable and knowable and therefore real. A transcendent God appears to be less threatening due to a default position of ignorance but when thinking about a tangible person then these matters become frightening.
Well anyway now to get to my subject. As a professor once said to me I said all that to say this and hopefully my intro just wasn’t a rabbit chase but rather a prelude to the reality behind this cultish group.
To begin with much of the group’s scholarship is unknowable and a percentage of them have not done any significant work regarding the New Testament and yet how can we trust their expert opinions on their critique of orthodox Christianity when they don’t have the academic prowess to be seriously considered under the pretense of critical scholarship.
In their pseudo research they like to conveniently include the apocryphal book of the gospel of Thomas which downplays Jesus miraculous side and yet they avoid the other Nag Hammadi documents of which was found alongside this same text. Perhaps the reason is because these other works contain even more mystical or magical elements than those of the gospel accounts.
These Gnostic authors made such extraordinary claims as denying the human element of Jesus by portraying Him as an illusion or phantom without a material body and not even the New Testament makes such claims and compared to these texts the gospels have been demythologized.
So in order to be consistent then why aren’t these other apocryphal works to be equally considered rather than just using a selective script to form the criteria for their claims?
Additionally the dating of these Nag Hammadi documents, if they were the originals, is long after these supposed authors had lived therefore the falsification of these forged works should not even be considered as credible or authoritative resources in comparison to the biblical data due to their lack of accreditation. You may also counter that this is the same dilemma that faces the gospels and I deal with this issue in one of my other posts
jesusandjews.com/wordpress/2010/02/03/is-the-bible-reliable/
Also one of the groups main proponents is Marcus Borg who was considered an agnostic upon entering his seminary studies even though he initially retained a favorable view of Jesus. Yet I am not sure how you can disassociate Jesus with God unless he was already predisposed to seeing Jesus as only a mere man to begin with. Additionally, how ironic and contradictory to first accept the biblical claims of Jesus but have doubts about the God of the same source document which is the bible. Perhaps it is this inconsistency which led him towards his revisionist view of the text?
This same kind of logic goes into the Jesus Seminar way of thinking in which they pick through and disseminate or discriminate in reorganizing the gospels by accepting small portions of the literature while rejecting its overall testimony. This duplicity is largely a result of liberal theology which also influenced Borg to eventually reject the biblical portrait of Jesus.
In addition to this much of this group is against anything that speaks of super-naturalism and yet Borg claims to latter of had a mystical experience himself which has experientially conditioned his philosophy and understanding independent of scholastics by which he has formed a mystical new age outlook on the God concept.
Based on this criteria God is preferentially relative and is basically a conglomeration of whatever you want to define as God. This kind of research is not centered on scholarship but upon the whims of a persons emotional state. Hardly the hard proof that is needed to adequately refute or counter the biblical record.
It may be liberating to generalize God because then a person can subjectively reduce God to whatever is meaningful to the individual therefore making a God after their own image and likeness rather than seeking out the source for objective truth.
Borg’s emotional state would be a major player as the willy nilly which has led him through the evolutionary process of formulating a progressive belief from that of the agnostic view to now a more advanced mystical experience which seems inconsistent with the position of the seminar. I am not just trying to pick on Borg but just to emphasize that this isn’t about education but rather it is about preferences against a formidable belief system.
His predisposition is to reject much of the new testament literature allowing him to reconstruct and redefine his own narrative to the person he wants to portray as a historical figure. Jesus is to be reinvented and reinterpreted to whatever makes him significant to the Seminar’s own personal values and beliefs.
By doing so the life of Jesus becomes reduced to being no more then just another religious guru who was influential over a religious body of believers and therefore can be routinely catalogued and categorized as one of the many who has left a legacy or a religious imprint on the heart and minds of mankind but is nonetheless neutralized in His claims of exclusivity as being the only way.
To make a Jesus after ones own image as based on a contemporary mindset in bowing to the god of cultural correctness is to make a more manageable humanity which is just plain idolatry.
This isn’t scholarship but rather dishonesty as it purports a bias to influence others to gravitate towards their scandalous agenda to downplay Jesus.
I wonder if the real issue is about hushing the words of the gospels in order to avoid the difficulties of such intolerant language and views as the exploits of hell and eternal judgment?
Are they trying to make a more tolerable and universal Jesus to fit their our own self image? A messiah that is more compatible to their own lifestyle and worldview? Kind of like the song of me and Jesus got our own thing going.
In order to accommodate for this kind of ideology the inscripturated pages of the text need to be literally ripped out or whited out when the red lettering seems to conflict with ones own criteria.
Ask yourself what is it that you find offensive about the gospel narrative and then look at your own life and see how they differ and perhaps that may be the truer measure of the matter rather than throwing out Jesus with the baptismal water?
When looking upon the favorability of the gospels it is presented in a historical context rather than it being classified in the mysterious language of poetic or wisdom literature. There is a coherency which doesn’t intend to deceive or distort truth by intermingling fact with fiction. Luke intends to give an accurate recording as he states at the onset of his letter and to think that honesty, which is one of the most virtuous aspects of Christianity, would be given over to falsehood would be unthinkable due to its repercussions for all liars to be cast into the fiery inferno of hell therefore making it even more unlikely that they would purposely tamper or alter the contents of the text due to their fear of God. Again you may argue that this is because of a late authorship in which people ignorantly embellished the scriptural data but yet there was such a relatively short period between the autograph and the events that anyone who was to hear an inaccurate or falsified rendering would of easily refuted and rejected such claims.
Another inherently and interesting trait about the gospels is the embarrassment factor which I believes gives some credence to its content.
This can be readily seen in which the heroes of the faith, namely the Apostles, are shown in a less than favorable light while elevating those of lesser stature. Also this literature would have been culturally challenging for a religious system that was intended to have a universal impact of world wide acceptance.
Additionally, why would you purposely leave in numerous scriptural paradoxes without trying to reconcile any perceived differences?
Why would all the disciples live and die for a lie if the resurrection was just another myth? It’s one thing when those who are removed from the event in time and space to have such a devotion but what can you say about the contemporaneous followers that remained devoted to Jesus after his death if the resurrection didn’t really happen? After all it wasn’t believed at this point in history that the Messiah would die and rise but rather it was thought that once he appeared on the world scene that He would then restore all things. So to preach such a message would be mere foolishness to these people.
The Jesus seminar sets its own criteria in critiquing the biblical Jesus not with the view to prove the text right but to disprove its content. Is this skepticism altruistic or has it resulted from a biased agenda which permeates with unbelief?
Is their approach to this subject a responsible attitude towards biblical scholarship or is it just a hunch?
Since the bible has proven itself as a reliable piece of literature couldn’t they at least give it the benefit of the doubt or the same consideration as any other ancient historical document until proven otherwise rather than prematurely passing a verdict of guilt?
Yet it has been the approach of this movement to censor and silence the biblical Jesus by giving the press a hodgepodge of loose sayings which in the final analysis leaves nothing coherently significant to communicate about Jesus by rendering His character as impotent thus neutering His cause.
In conclusion if there is a God who created us it is conceivable that He is relational towards us as based upon the intrinsic and universal values which we all hold to as being definably human in fulfilling the basic needs of our social and emotional requirements. Are these desires to be experienced only horizontally or could it hold to another dimension along a vertical plane as being our ultimate fulfillment and destiny? Jesus incarnation is coherently compatible with this view as He serves an intercessory role for mankind in fleshing out the intimate needs between God and man.
In regards to purpose and meaning are we an assembly line of a fabricated parts or just another brick in the wall? Are we insignifical atoms competing in a environment of indifference? This kind of logic leads a person to embrace irrational thoughts of nihilism and its no wonder Nietzsche saw suicide as a way of dealing with the outcome of ultimate meaninglessness when he assigned a grave to God.
Don’t get me wrong its not a matter of whether or not a person wants God to exist as our hopes and desires doesn’t create reality except only in the land of make believe. Me hoping there is a God or you hoping there is not does nothing to extend the reality of what is.
The folly of Kant’s philosophy is that we should live as if there is a God in regards to making sense of morality which again doesn’t forcibly answer this ultimate question but rather it just leaves the door cracked open a little just in case someone is there.
If God exists and he desires to be in relationship with us by sending us the divine Logos or Word in the person of Jesus then is it too much to ask then to capture the content of His inspirational teachings by recording them in the gospel accounts? Additionally, if we can conceive of His words and teachings being put on a parchment would it be too difficult then for an Almighty God to oversee the procedure for preservation? After all what a waste if He only temporarily entered into time and space to influence a handful of people just to leave us a few morsels of truth as based on the outcome of the Jesus Seminar folks.
God is speaking to us through the revelation of Jesus, the scriptures, a created order, and by the morality of conscious. He bears witness continually if we are able to use the sensory perception which he has divinely enabled us with. Jesus speaks of ears to hear and eyes to see so that we may know what the Spirit of God is revealing to us.
Finally, perhaps you have at one point felt the need to fill the void of your soul. Maybe the world was not able to satiate your deepest longings and desire and has left you with the feelings of disillusionment and emptiness in which you have asked yourself “is this all there is to life?”
I realize a few thousand words may not be enough to convince you but perhaps it can get you to at least consider such ideas. After all if there is a God it would behoove you to seek Him out in knowing how to relate to Him.
Also I am not asking that you now pacify your emotions on finding spirituality in counterfeit religions but rather to seek out a relationship with the one who is definably your Creator.
Lastly my simplistic plea is that you would be open and considerate to the possibilities of Jesus and to pray to Him that He would reveal Himself to you in such a way whereby you can entrust your life to Him as Lord and Saviour.
Atheist and Agnostic Resources
English Articles on Atheism and Agnosticism
Other related links
www.bethinking.org/bible/the-jesus-seminar
www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/Debate-with-The-Jesus-Seminar.mp3
jesusandjews.com/wordpress/2010/10/24/da-vinci-code-fact-or-myth/
“Jesus Under Fire” Copyright 1995 by Michael J. Wilkins, J.P. Moreland, Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, William Lane Craig, Craig A. Evans, Douglas Geivett, Gary Habermas, Scot McKnight, and Edwin Yamauchi
Used by Permission from Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530