Responding to a modernist professor

  • Thread starter Thread starter Oscarthecat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Oscarthecat

Guest
Hello all,

I have an issue with a modernist professor (who doesn’t, really?) in my masters of theology program. I’m going to try to present a few general points of view that he holds, in the hope that I can gather some good responses from you knowledgeable folks. I know these arguments are pretty simple in their basic nature, but the real problem is that he dismisses any evidence that doesn’t prove his point-a typical modernist tactic-so any advice on an airtight response to the above issues would really be appreciated.

*We don’t objectively know anything about the historical figure of Christ because everything written about Him in the Gospels was written to advance a specific Christology, not to objectively report facts and data.

We have no way of objectively identifying the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth from the New Testament because the Christ we think we know today is really a result of 2000 years of collective and popularly held beliefs about who we hope Christ is. He evidences this by pointing to different denominations who present different views of Christ.

Therefore, Christianity is not about Christ, it is about Christians. The “person who was Christ 2000 years ago” has been overshadowed by who we think of when we think of the Jesus that has been reconstructed over the years, This figure is an artificial ideal that might have began with the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth, but no longer resembles that historical figure-or, at least, there is no way for us to know how similar these two figures really are.

Therefore, since Christ is really what we make Him to be, then the only real earthly authority that exists over the Church is the collective experience of Christ which can’t be explicitly expressed, but only observed in the implicit will of the people. *

His usual endgame here is reconstructing the Catholic Church as a democratic, loosely affiliated system of small “house churches” without an ordained priesthood, discernable heirarchy, etc.

I know there is a lot there to dismantle, so feel free to just break off a piece here or there as you see fit.

One last thing, and please no one take offense, but responses like “just tell him he’s teaching heresy” or “Pope … says that he’s wrong in the following encyclical” aren’t much help, although I appreciate the sentiment. I’m really looking for how to deal with this kind of argument in terms that a person who really believes it will understand.
 
Oscarthecat said:
Hello all,

I have an issue with a modernist professor (who doesn’t, really?) in my masters of theology program. I’m going to try to present a few general points of view that he holds, in the hope that I can gather some good responses from you knowledgeable folks. I know these arguments are pretty simple in their basic nature, but the real problem is that he dismisses any evidence that doesn’t prove his point-a typical modernist tactic-so any advice on an airtight response to the above issues would really be appreciated.

*We don’t objectively know anything about the historical figure of Christ because everything written about Him in the Gospels was written to advance a specific Christology, not to objectively report facts and data.

We have no way of objectively identifying the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth from the New Testament because the Christ we think we know today is really a result of 2000 years of collective and popularly held beliefs about who we hope Christ is. He evidences this by pointing to different denominations who present different views of Christ.

Therefore, Christianity is not about Christ, it is about Christians. The “person who was Christ 2000 years ago” has been overshadowed by who we think of when we think of the Jesus that has been reconstructed over the years, This figure is an artificial ideal that might have began with the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth, but no longer resembles that historical figure-or, at least, there is no way for us to know how similar these two figures really are.

Therefore, since Christ is really what we make Him to be, then the only real earthly authority that exists over the Church is the collective experience of Christ which can’t be explicitly expressed, but only observed in the implicit will of the people. *

His usual endgame here is reconstructing the Catholic Church as a democratic, loosely affiliated system of small “house churches” without an ordained priesthood or discernable heirarchy would be really helpful.

I know there is a lot there to dismantle, so feel free to just break off a piece here or there as you see fit.

One last thing, and please no one take offense, but responses like “just tell him he’s teaching heresy” or “Pope … says that he’s wrong in the following encyclical” aren’t much help, although I appreciate the sentiment. I’m really looking for how to deal with this kind of argument in terms that a person who really believes it will understand.
Click to expand...
We started with the oral tradition and then the Gospels which came very early on. Jesus then is the same as Jesus today.

Start with:
THE HISTORICITY OF THE GOSPELS
then
** The Gospels are Historical**
 
Then you can move to the creeds. The creeds were defenses against heresy. They affirm the real Jesus.

Since we intepret the Bible through the Magisterium it ensures that we consistely see the real Jesus.

When we delve into “sola scriptura” we can see what happens, everyone can see Him differently.
 
Oscarthecat said:
We don’t objectively know anything about the historical figure of Christ because everything written about Him in the Gospels was written to advance a specific Christology, not to objectively report facts and data.
Click to expand...
This very premise is contrary to what Luke wrote in the beginning of his Gospel.

LK 1-4:
Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

Now, Luke says he investigated the accounts himself by talking to people who were eyewitnesses from the beginning. You professor says that Luke is a liar. Who do you believe?
 
Oscarthecat said:
I have an issue with a modernist professor (who doesn’t, really?) in my masters of theology program. I’m going to try to present a few general points of view that he holds, in the hope that I can gather some good responses from you knowledgeable folks. I know these arguments are pretty simple in their basic nature, but the real problem is that he dismisses any evidence that doesn’t prove his point-a typical modernist tactic-so any advice on an airtight response to the above issues would really be appreciated.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say much of anything, considering at this point in your life, he can do a lot more damage to you professionally then he can do to you.
 
m134e5 said:
I wouldn’t say much of anything, considering at this point in your life, he can do a lot more damage to you professionally then he can do to you.
Click to expand...
Since when is cowardice a cardinal virtue?
 
Oscarthecat said:
*We don’t objectively know anything about the historical figure of Christ because everything written about Him in the Gospels was written to advance a specific Christology, not to objectively report facts and data. *

*We have no way of objectively identifying the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth from the New Testament because the Christ we think we know today is really a result of 2000 years of collective and popularly held beliefs about who we hope Christ is. *
Click to expand...
these statements could be made about any historical figure. Substitute Julius Caesar, Louis XVI, Henry VIII, or George Washington, and adjust the number of years over which legend, historical record, independent sources, and contributions of followers, students or biographers of those subjects have accumulated, for the name of Jesus Christ.

The fundamental error in this professor and others like him is to discount the gospels and NT accounts as primary sources, a valid part of the historical record. Direct eye witness accounts, complilations of testimony of subjects or followers of a historical personage, letters and other writings about the personage and his adherents, work, life and times, are all considered primary source material by historians discussing other figures in the ancient world. It is only when we begin to study Jesus Christ that we selectively discard part of the record.
 
Maranatha said:
This very premise is contrary to what Luke wrote in the beginning of his Gospel.

LK 1-4:
Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

Now, Luke says he investigated the accounts himself by talking to people who were eyewitnesses from the beginning. You professor says that Luke is a liar. Who do you believe?
Click to expand...
Pax tecum!

Not to mention that fact that St. Luke is regarded, even by secular historians, as a very very good historian, especially in his writing of Acts.

In Christ,
Rand
 
he has a faulty presupposition-that there is no such thing as supernatural. Rooted in Enlightenment thought.
 
Two debates by evangelicals on the “historical Jesus”

WIlliam Lane Craig vs. John Dominic Crossan (MP3)
Gregory Boyd vs. Robert Price (MP3)

Several excellent short essays by evangelicals is Jesus Under Fire (1995)

Brand new book by evangelical Richard Bauckham of St. Andrews in Scotland, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Eerdmans, 2006), a hardback

Also anything by N.T. Wright especially Jesus and the Victory of God (volume 2 of this series available in paperback) is outstanding. You’ll find a lot of interesting and scholarly talks and writings in response to “modernists” on the www.NTWrightPage.com

I don’t have many Catholic books on the subject, but evangelicals and orthodox Catholics are on the same team here. The classic Catholic study is John P. Meier’s A Marginal Jew (several volumes are out).

I am trying to do a study of this whole subject and recently bought all the best books, but I’m afraid I’m in over my head. :confused:

Phil P
 
Oscarthecat said:
Hello all,

[Professor ]
*We don’t objectively know anything about the historical figure of Christ because everything written about Him in the Gospels was written to advance a specific Christology, not to objectively report facts and data. *
Click to expand...
I’ve give you a tip. When engaing in a serious argument, don’t take the weak points of your opponents argument and say why they are weak. Take what you consider to be the strongest point and say why it is strong.

So what is strong about this point? To start with, you ought to be aware that the gospels are not modern academic biographies of Jesus. Can we find examples of a “specific” Christology in other Christian literature, such as St Paul’s letters?

Once you’ve done that, you will realise that there are some aspects of the Professor’s point that really cannot be defended. We don’t objectively know that Jesus lived in Palestine? Some people have argued that, but it is unlikely that your Professor would want to keep them company.

That way you are not just point scoring. You are engaging with and taking apart what he has to say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top