Scholars to debate the "Historical Jesus"

[DaughterSorrow]

Okay, I see but then the thread title is wrong.

oops! Good point! Maybe the Jesus project is different than the Jesus Seminar.

 

[DaughterSorrow]

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.

Thanks. I will get the Redford book!

I am hoping it’s more substantive than the links I read earlier from CathlolicCulture. I don’t think we can go down the path of name-calling on this. Positive witness to God’s presence in the world and to changes in our lives as a result of Him and the works of the Church is the way to go. To play their game would not be a winning proposition…

Thanks again!

Peace,
DS

 

[Cranch]

In my opinion the Jesus Seminar “fellows” with their colored beads, are a bunch of faithless, self-important, publicity seekers.

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…

It’s not an argument. It’s my opinion. And a judgement. And it’s dismissive. If you want to take them seriously, that is your right.

 

[Contarini]

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

But of course this only draws on one particular faction of NT scholars–people like Pagels and Crossan. There are lots of equally illustrious scholars–people like N. T. Wright, Richard Hays, Luke Timothy Johnson, John P. Meier–whose views are far closer to orthodox Christianity (I say “far closer” because I’m sure people on this board will find something to object to in the views of some or all of the figures I mentioned).

Edwin

 

[skuld]

I always thought the question was Jesus’ divinity, not Jesus’ existence.

 

[Franciscan]

I always thought the question was Jesus’ divinity, not Jesus’ existence.

If it wasn’t for Josephus the historian and other “secular” historians of antiquity the Jesus Projesct/seminar People would have to sayy that Jesus existance was probably myth.
BTW the scolars of botha camps are sometimes called the “De-Mythologizers”.

 

[DaughterSorrow]

It’s not an argument. It’s my opinion. And a judgement. And it’s dismissive. If you want to take them seriously, that is your right.

Sorry I answered you too quickly. I didn’t mean to offend.

I don’t want to dismiss them without any response at all, however, because they are pulling the faithful away from the Church and I feel they must be addressed. Such “biblical scholarship” is invading the Catholic seminaries as you can read from previous links. That is something I don’t think that should be dismissed.

In Peace and Respect,
DS

 

[Iowa_Mike]

The existance of Jesus is already a historical fact. So let this group do their thing…if they are honest they will simply affirm what has been already established…If they have some sort of diabolical agenda it will come into the light soon enough.

I don’t think anyone should burn too many btu’s worrying about what they say. Jesus said that he would be always with us…I believe him.

Iowa Mike

 

[DaughterSorrow]

If it wasn’t for Josephus the historian and other “secular” historians of antiquity the Jesus Projesct/seminar People would have to sayy that Jesus existance was probably myth.

Good point, Franciscan!

 

[Cranch]

Sorry I answered you too quickly. I didn’t mean to offend. …In Peace and Respect,
DS

No problem. I just have a thing about what sometimes passes for *argument *these days, and I didn’t want to be seen as someone who might be unclear on the concept.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

This is the same argument they use against us though. They say we are predisposed or biased to the supernatural.

i feel that we should approach the bible as any other piece of historical evidence. we should read it with an open mind and stick with the facts. if read the bible in its historical context in light of the history of the church and the saints, you come to two conclusions:

a) Jesus was truly the Son of God, or at least could be.

b) He was a mad man who failed and died a miserable death yet somehow started the single largest and most influential faith on the earth leading many of its followers and nearly all of Jesus’s apostles to death.

 

[OriginalJS]

I think the name of this thread is misleading. None of those mentioned deny that Jesus existed. There have been people who set out to prove that Jesus did not exist, but they have failed. The arguments put forth by Bishop Spong and the Jesus Seminar, to name two listed above, have to do with exactly what Jesus did, who he was, and what he taught. In short, an attempt to arrive at at 20th or 21st century style reality in a “historical Jesus.”

 

[DaughterSorrow]

i feel that we should approach the bible as any other piece of historical evidence. we should read it with an open mind and stick with the facts. if read the bible in its historical context in light of the history of the church and the saints, you come to two conclusions:

a) Jesus was truly the Son of God, or at least could be.

b) He was a mad man who failed and died a miserable death yet somehow started the single largest and most influential faith on the earth leading many of its followers and nearly all of Jesus’s apostles to death.

I have used those. Their 3rd argument is that Jesus was a sage and that the bible was written by fallible men that were not necessarily inspired and they added folklore to it based on old stories of mythology.

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

Changed thread title to reflect topic.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

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.

Anyone who has studied physics, particularly particle, or quantum physics will be quite aware that the rules describing the operation of the universe are full of holes.
This is the basis of quantum uncertainty.
Without this principle, the universe could never have come into existance, that is, the miracle of creation could never have hapenned.
{{Or if it could, by some other form of miracle, then that universe would be deterministic, and every occurrance therein would be predictable, and as a result, it would be utterly pointless.}}
Your transistor radio, your MP3 player, your quartz watch, your computer would not work, for there would be no transistors.
It is for you to decide where you draw the line between natural and super-natural: to the physicist, the line is not there, there is just an increasing level of improbability, but in principle, everything is possible, just having varying degrees of improbability.

 

[RikasAngel]

Hello All,

I’m amused at the news. The Jesus Seminar has become less influencial among the public recently, though the Media still loves them, having them give their annual Christmas and Easter Specials which few actually watch. Epecially in light of the Da Vinci Code phenomenon, Christian Apologists and Scholars demolished the “Facts” of Gnostic Christianity, firmly established the Orthodox version of Christ, and undermined much of what the original Jesus Seminar attempted to do.

Comically, the “guest list” reveals a lot. Why isn’t N.T. Wright, the world’s foremost New Testament Scholar not invited. Could it be because he defends the Traditional Christ? If there’s to be an honest assesment of the facts, why not have conflicting views along the spectrum. Even Art Bell and George Noory do that. It appears that devout Christian scholars like Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, Michael Licona, Darrel Bock, Craig Blomberg, Ed Komoszewski, James Sawyer, Daniel Wallace, Scott Hahn, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Sr. Renu Rita Silvano, Kenneth Whitehead, and Antonio Fuentes need not apply.
The new “Jesus Project” is won’t make the same splash it originally did, unless it does go out on a limb and denies Jesus’ existence. I think I’ll pay more attention to the next Roswell UFO Convention. :dancing:

 

[Contarini]

I always thought the question was Jesus’ divinity, not Jesus’ existence.

Apparently now they’re trying to open the question of Jesus’ existence. Or at least, the question of whether anything we have in the NT has any relation to a historic figure. I suspect that’s how they would put it. Obviously no one is going to commit themselves to saying that there was no rabbi in the first century named Yeshua of Nazareth!

Edwin

 

[Franciscan]

Hello All,

I’m amused at the news. The Jesus Seminar has become less influencial among the public recently, though the Media still loves them, having them give their annual Christmas and Easter Specials which few actually watch. Epecially in light of the Da Vinci Code phenomenon, Christian Apologists and Scholars demolished the “Facts” of Gnostic Christianity, firmly established the Orthodox version of Christ, and undermined much of what the original Jesus Seminar attempted to do.

Comically, the “guest list” reveals a lot. Why isn’t N.T. Wright, the world’s foremost New Testament Scholar not invited. Could it be because he defends the Traditional Christ? If there’s to be an honest assesment of the facts, why not have conflicting views along the spectrum. Even Art Bell and George Noory do that. It appears that devout Christian scholars like Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, Michael Licona, Darrel Bock, Craig Blomberg, Ed Komoszewski, James Sawyer, Daniel Wallace, Scott Hahn, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Sr. Renu Rita Silvano, Kenneth Whitehead, and Antonio Fuentes need not apply.
The new “Jesus Project” is won’t make the same splash it originally did, unless it does go out on a limb and denies Jesus’ existence. I think I’ll pay more attention to the next Roswell UFO Convention. :dancing:

I love this response.

For those of us who know better we did not watch those documentaries. But impessionable people many do watch them-so I don’t dismiss them as foolish or harmless.

But you made an excellent point on the lack of objectivity based on the guest list. I would purchase a ticket to watch those scholars listed duke it out(intellectually) wth the De-mytholgizers.

 

[Ignatius]

“The Historical Jesus” is a false construct. Read “On the Way to Jesus Christ” by Pope Benedict XVI to learn more.

 

[Crumpy]

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.

Well…except to waste our time and to confuse people with borderline or weak faith. Nothing says that we have to allow such debate in the mainstream of our Catholic culture.

This is the stuff Catholic apologists and scholars train themselves for.

On 1/11/07, on EWTN’s Franciscan University Forum, Dr. Scott Hahn addressed this general subject something like this. There are people who are always scratching around behind the verses of scripture. He used a word that I can’t remember, but it was something familiar like “conventional” to describe the study of scripture as it is written. I think the word was “canonical criticism.” In the canonical view, we don’t distress and bother ourselves with such questions. We focus on what the scripture says, as it is written.

Personally, I’ve never seen anything but volumes of doubt come out of doubting and second-guessing everything in scripture. Logically, that’s begging the question. You start with doubt and conclude that there is doubt! How hard is it to prove that?