Scholars to debate the "Historical Jesus"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maranatha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Maranatha

Guest
Scholars to debate if Jesus existed

Internationally recognized biblical scholars are set to launch The Jesus Project, a new endeavour to examine the historical existence of Christ.

The project is intended to pick up where the controversial Jesus Seminar left off in its research into the veracity of Jesus’s words and deeds in the Bible.

The seminar has lost momentum in recent years, but in its heyday, about 200 scholars met regularly to discuss whether Jesus really behaved as the Bible says he did.

more
 
Maranatha said:
Scholars to debate if Jesus existed

Internationally recognized biblical scholars are set to launch The Jesus Project, a new endeavour to examine the historical existence of Christ.

The project is intended to pick up where the controversial Jesus Seminar left off in its research into the veracity of Jesus’s words and deeds in the Bible.

The seminar has lost momentum in recent years, but in its heyday, about 200 scholars met regularly to discuss whether Jesus really behaved as the Bible says he did.

more
Click to expand...
EDUCATED FOOLS.

They seek to “challenge” the Catholic worldview which we work so hard to instill in our children. They produce the so-called intellectual elite who mock any notion of the supernatural. They become too sophisticated to accept the elements of faith. Their gratitude is replaced with a sense of entitlement and their humility is crushed by an obesity of self worth. They would never consider or even fathom the idea of obedience to the Church. To them it is a foreign body governed by intellectual inferiors.
 
Ah, yes, St. Louis De Montfort would find them “critical devotees” to our Lord. The ‘intelligentsia’ who “are, for the most part, proud scholars, rash and self-sufficient spirits, who have for themselves some devotion . … but who criticize nearly all the practices of devotion which simple people pay simply and holily. . .because these practices do not fall in with their own humor and fancy. They call in doubt all the miracles and pious stories recorded by authors worthy of faith or drawn from the chroniclers of religious orders. . .they say that, for their part, they are not so fond of these external devotions, and that they are not so credulous to believe so many tales and stories. . .they either reply that the Fathers spoke as professional orators, with exaggeration, or that they misinterpret their words. . .they do an infinite wrong. .under the pretext of destroying abuses.” True Devotion to Mary.
 
I see your point Franciscan, but my understanding of my faith is that God can never contradict science- as everything in it was created by him. Therefore we have nothing to fear from honest, objective and intelligent scientific enquiry.
 
I would like to see links to refutations by the Catholic Church of the Jesus Seminar. Does anyone have them? I am in a debate with a person that follows this line of thinking along with John Selby Spong (the Episopal bishop who is no longer a theist).

I have read things on the internet about the Jesus Seminar and have concluded that they want to build a “historical Jesus.” The methodology of determining authenticity almost seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy as one of the requirements of an inauthentic statement by Jesus is one where he talks about himself. ??

Any links or support I would appreciate greatly!

In Peace,
DS
 
DaughterSorrow said:
I would like to see links to refutations by the Catholic Church of the Jesus Seminar. Does anyone have them? I am in a debate with a person that follows this line of thinking along with John Selby Spong (the Episopal bishop who is no longer a theist).

I have read things on the internet about the Jesus Seminar and have concluded that they want to build a “historical Jesus.” The methodology of determining authenticity almost seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy as one of the requirements of an inauthentic statement by Jesus is one where he talks about himself. ??

Any links or support I would appreciate greatly!

In Peace,
DS
Click to expand...
Canon John Redford has written an extraordinary book which deals in great depth with the issue-- amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h_/026-8242269-4269219?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=john+redford+bad+mad+or+god&Go.x=8&Go.y=6 I would highly recommend it!!!
 
FightingFat said:
I see your point Franciscan, but my understanding of my faith is that God can never contradict science- as everything in it was created by him. Therefore we have nothing to fear from honest, objective and intelligent scientific enquiry.
Click to expand...
I don’t quite follow that logic. Just because it was created by God, does not mean that he could not add a supernatural phenomenon. Metaphysically, the world could also not just be limited by natural events. We cannot know all things, so generally we cannot rule out supernatural events even if it is just a very small event. If natural events tend to have the most effect, it is well and good to study them, cause that will nearly always predict the tendancy for that to happen, and we can put to good and effective use. I agree it is a good thing to have honest, objective and intelligent scientific enquiry, but it must also know it’s limits.

One other thing, I would think some supernatural events would have to take place when eschatological matters come to reality.
 
FightingFat said:
I see your point Franciscan, but my understanding of my faith is that God can never contradict science- as everything in it was created by him. Therefore we have nothing to fear from honest, objective and intelligent scientific enquiry.
Click to expand...
The key words being honest and objective. I don’t think the methodology of the JS was either. The rules for what beads each passage received (as a measure of authenticity) required concepts that already predetermined that nothing supernatural can be possible. Therefore a “historical Jesus” is an incomplete Jesus. Any passage where Jesus refers to himself as God is stricken with a black bead, and multiple attestations, which are supposed to indicate authenticity, are thrown out if they indicate a supernatural occurrencee (virgin birth for example).

I am still learning about this and I will pick up the Redmond book to help me, but its seems to me that the preconception of those scholars is that Jesus was not God.

In Peace,
DS
 
DaughterSorrow said:
The key words being honest and objective. I don’t think the methodology of the JS was either. The rules for what beads each passage received (as a measure of authenticity) required concepts that already predetermined that nothing supernatural can be possible. Therefore a “historical Jesus” is an incomplete Jesus. Any passage where Jesus refers to himself as God is stricken with a black bead, and multiple attestations, which are supposed to indicate authenticity, are thrown out if they indicate a supernatural occurrencee (virgin birth for example).

I am still learning about this and I will pick up the Redmond book to help me, but its seems to me that the preconception of those scholars is that Jesus was not God.

In Peace,
DS
Click to expand...
ditto.👍
I would add that the only historicity that they lend to the Gospels are stories that aid their AGENDA.
 
Maranatha said:
Scholars to debate if Jesus existed

Internationally recognized biblical scholars are set to launch The Jesus Project, a new endeavour to examine the historical existence of Christ.

The project is intended to pick up where the controversial Jesus Seminar left off in its research into the veracity of Jesus’s words and deeds in the Bible.

The seminar has lost momentum in recent years, but in its heyday, about 200 scholars met regularly to discuss whether Jesus really behaved as the Bible says he did.

more
Click to expand...
I’m confused. If they are discussing regularly if Jesus behaved as the Bible says he did, by definition then he must have existed. You can’t debate someone’s actual behaviour if they did not exist!
 
In my opinion the Jesus Seminar “fellows” with their colored beads, are a bunch of faithless, self-important, publicity seekers. :sleep:
 
i’m sure these scholars could do good scholarship. they may have a good understanding of ancient rome and the middle east at the time of Jesus. but they obviously are not open minded to the authenticity of the scriptures. they read into everything with the idea that it isn’t God breathed. so naturally they’ll come to biased conclusions, just like a rabbi would when reading the new testament. so they end up doing bad scholarship.

it’s the same trap homosexual activists fall into when they use medial studies to prove that being a homosexual is genetic–they already know the conclusion before they start.

they would do better having a joe smith seminar or mohammed seminar.
 
jman507 said:
I don’t quite follow that logic. Just because it was created by God, does not mean that he could not add a supernatural phenomenon. Metaphysically, the world could also not just be limited by natural events. We cannot know all things, so generally we cannot rule out supernatural events even if it is just a very small event. If natural events tend to have the most effect, it is well and good to study them, cause that will nearly always predict the tendancy for that to happen, and we can put to good and effective use. I agree it is a good thing to have honest, objective and intelligent scientific enquiry, but it must also know it’s limits.

One other thing, I would think some supernatural events would have to take place when eschatological matters come to reality.
Click to expand...
Science (providing it is moral) can never contradict faith/ conflict with The Faith because faith and the things of the world both derive from God. [check CCC159] In fact scientific research is a significant expression of man’s domination over creation [see CCC2239].

The thrust of Catholic Theology is aimed at this certainty that Faith never contradicts Reason.
 
I saw a great bumper sticker yesterday:
I think therefore I am dangerous.
certainly applies to these pseudo-scholars
 
thistle said:
I’m confused. If they are discussing regularly if Jesus behaved as the Bible says he did, by definition then he must have existed. You can’t debate someone’s actual behaviour if they did not exist!
Click to expand...
I don’t think they are debating on whether Jesus existed. They are contending that Jesus was a sage and not God. This is the crux finding of the JS.
 
Cranch said:
In my opinion the Jesus Seminar “fellows” with their colored beads, are a bunch of faithless, self-important, publicity seekers. :sleep:
Click to expand...
I think we’re going to need more teeth in our argumentation than that. There is a serious movement afoot. And we have to be ready…
 
Dee_Dee_King said:
i’m sure these scholars could do good scholarship. they may have a good understanding of ancient rome and the middle east at the time of Jesus. but they obviously are not open minded to the authenticity of the scriptures. they read into everything with the idea that it isn’t God breathed. so naturally they’ll come to biased conclusions, just like a rabbi would when reading the new testament. so they end up doing bad scholarship.

it’s the same trap homowexual activists fall into when they use medial studies to prove that being a homosexual is genetic–they already know the conclusion before they start.

they would do better having a joe smith seminar or mohammed seminar.
Click to expand...
This is the same argument they use against us though. They say we are predisposed or biased to the supernatural. My big problem with building the historical Jesus is the contention that this is all he can be - a person in history. Their main assumption - his historicity - is the problem.

Take a look at the folks that ran Westar, the group that produced the Jesus Seminar. Most all of these scholars on the board had a preconception that the supernatural is silly. But they are convincing many to their side because it feels good to know that no God is judging them. It lets them off the hook in many ways. But I believe that this is only one side of the equation. They also then think that no God is loving and forgiving them.

I say look at the fruits that we bear. It can be painful to watch the dismantling of faith in this manner, but we must stand firm and act as the body of Christ here on earth in peace, charity, and prayer. I am in a 3 week long argument on another board about this. My disposition on the subject is leading others to question the JS merely due to the fact that I am calmly restating my faith in Jesus and “breaking open the word” to reveal the eternal truths through His son that God is revealing to us. I’m just trying to plan seeds. There is NO WAY to prove faith. One must only have it and show it in his/her daily actions.

I hope I can get somewhere on this. I definitely will get the Redmond book.

In Peace,
DS
 
Brilliant posting DaughterSorrow, this is exactly the approach I would advocate.

The Creed and in that, what we believe is preposterous at first glance if you consider it objectively. Yet if we take the facts calmly and logically we can rediscover that there is no possible other outcome than the wonderful faith that the Church professes. Our challenge is to demonstrate this to others. This sort of questioning raises a fantastic opportunity for evagelisation and to utilise the fabulous theologians that God has blessed us with.

It’s Redford by the way; I think you will find the book most useful!

Father John is a fellow of the Maryvale Institute in Birmingham and his book is also avaliable from their bookshop maryvale.ac.uk/BookshopA-B.htm

‘Bad, Mad or God’ Canon John Redford Published by Veritas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top