Jesus Christ

[flowperson]

Hi Ruby !

Whew !

Well, I do assert that scholars evaluating aspects of issues and then voting on choices to reach an agreement is akin to the scientific method since it is a process thru which known research findings are winnowed into something more understandable as a whole. This is what the Seminar participants did as far as I know, and to an extent, this is also a process that goes on regularly in academic departments at universities and in faculty senates when and where policy is made.

I worked at a large university in a midwest US state which had a statewide enrollment of upwards of 70,000. I worked at the two major campuses in research administration, and also at the corporate level under the Provost and helped supervise the disclosure, evaluation, and licensing of intellectual properties created at the university's campuses. I was also the Secretary of two university level committees... you know taking minutes, keeping notes for the bosses, etc. I was also later included in seven different versions of Who's Who reference books, not that this really makes any difference here.

I would like to point out that the faculty at a Lutheran institution would be fairly conservative in their approaches to the evaluation of research materials pertaining to Jesus' life, and suggest that preconceived biases would likely preclude them from giving favorable consideration to many of the facts that the Seminar evaluated. However I did sit on an advanced seminar regarding science and religion which took place at the Lutheran Theology School at the University of Chicago in the 80's and was even invited to publish an article in their journal. So I guess someone there believed that I knew what I was talking about.

I don't really know many of the details about the Seminar. I only tried to give you an opinion regarding my overview of their activities. Please accept what I offered you as only that, and not as an exhaustive explanation of their internal workings and processes at the Seminar.

Peace and Love...

flow....

[lunamoth]

Hi Ruby and Flow,

Not to interupt your dialogue here, but I think something was not made clear about how the Jesus Seminar works. The Biblical Scholars involved are well-known and well-respected (as scholars at least, I know a lot of people take issue with their approach and conclusions). It's not like they are a bunch of bozos, nor are they setting out to undermine Christianity. I know that a number of them are practicing Christians.

But, what I wanted to say is that it is not as simple as they just read the Bible and vote--each is voting based upon the extensive individual scholarship that they do (and have peer-reviewed and published). I would not think that it is uncommon that reputable scholars would still come to different conclusions regarding the historical accuracy of Biblical accounts and the 'voting' method is a way to measure the agreement between the conclusions of the different investigators. This actually seems like a pretty good way to try to apply the scientific method to something as difficult and subjective as Biblical research.

IOW, to me it does not seem like they are voting to determine 'truth' but are voting to determine the amount of agreement they have regarding factual historical accuracy of the Bible. Truth in revelation and scripture, I think, is something much different than a literal-factual historical accuracy.

IMO the problem with the Jesus Seminar is that like some literalists at the conservative end of the spectrum, these literalists at the liberal end of the spectrum are missing the forest for the trees. Did Jesus actually factually utter a given set of words 2000 years ago? I don't know, but He speaks those words today to each of us as we read the Bible, and that is what is important to me.

2 c,
luna

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Ruby and Flow,

Not to interupt your dialogue here, but I think something was not made clear about how the Jesus Seminar works. The Biblical Scholars involved are well-known and well-respected (as scholars at least, I know a lot of people take issue with their approach and conclusions). It's not like they are a bunch of bozos, nor are they setting out to undermine Christianity. I know that a number of them are practicing Christians.

But, what I wanted to say is that it is not as simple as they just read the Bible and vote--each is voting based upon the extensive individual scholarship that they do (and have peer-reviewed and published). I would not think that it is uncommon that reputable scholars would still come to different conclusions regarding the historical accuracy of Biblical accounts and the 'voting' method is a way to measure the agreement between the conclusions of the different investigators. This actually seems like a pretty good way to try to apply the scientific method to something as difficult and subjective as Biblical research.

IOW, to me it does not seem like they are voting to determine 'truth' but are voting to determine the amount of agreement they have regarding factual historical accuracy of the Bible. Truth in revelation and scripture, I think, is something much different than a literal-factual historical accuracy.

IMO the problem with the Jesus Seminar is that like some literalists at the conservative end of the spectrum, these literalists at the liberal end of the spectrum are missing the forest for the trees. Did Jesus actually factually utter a given set of words 2000 years ago? I don't know, but He speaks those words today to each of us as we read the Bible, and that is what is important to me.

2 c,
luna

Luna, thanks for jumping in here. What you say makes sense. To vote to find out how many people agree with a certain view makes sense. That is a level or type of scholarship I have not yet encountered but I can believe it. They are not voting on the veracity of the view but on agreement.

So you say the Jesus Seminar people are literalists? That would give me some clue as to why my profs don't like their stuff. They aren't literalist. They claim to be conservative but it's a kind of conservative Christianity I have never seen. I think they are liberal because they are not literalists. I'll have to discuss this with them sometime because I'd like a better understanding of this liberal-conservative thing.

Did Jesus actually factually utter a given set of words 2000 years ago?

Is that the type of question the Jesus Seminar people research? If so, how do they differ from the conservative Christians?

Flow,

I have no doubt that you are very good at what you do and that the vote is a good and common way to make decisions on policies. But we don't get to decide the past. What we get to decide is what we believe about the past. According to Luna, that is what the vote is about.

That is about as clear as I know to make my point. It's what I tried to say in the above post but in much more detail and depth. And also, I was totally baffled why you say the things you do. So I guess we talked around each other. I'm glad Luna came to the rescue. I hope things are clear for you, too.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

Is that the type of question the Jesus Seminar people research? If so, how do they differ from the conservative Christians?

Haha. One huge difference is that conservative literalist Christians hold that every single word of the Bible is accurate literal truth, while the 'liberal' Christian scholars conclude that really only a very very few words were actually spoken by the lips of the historical Jesus, and only very very few events/miracles actually happened. That's why the conservative/fundamentalist Christians tend to really dislike the JS, they see them as saying the Bible is not true. I know a lot of traditional, yet comparatively progressive Christians, (I guess I'm referring to Catholics and mainstream Protestants) also do not embrace the findings of the JS. Just guessing I think this is because this kind of scholarship is rather 'lightweight' compared to the centuries of theological thought and philosophy conducted by the doctors of the Church, in the context of Tradition. I would agree with this assessment, BTW.

luna

[AletheiaRivers]

Originally Posted by Ruby

So you say the Jesus Seminar people are literalists? That would give me some clue as to why my profs don't like their stuff. They aren't literalist. They claim to be conservative but it's a kind of conservative Christianity I have never seen. I think they are liberal because they are not literalists.

Originally Posted by Luna

I know a lot of traditional, yet comparatively progressive Christians, (I guess I'm referring to Catholics and mainstream Protestants) also do not embrace the findings of the JS. Just guessing I think this is because this kind of scholarship is rather 'lightweight' compared to the centuries of theological thought and philosophy conducted by the doctors of the Church, in the context of Tradition. I would agree with this assessment, BTW.

It all gets rather confusing doesn't it?

There are liberal literalists. There are liberal traditionalists. There are liberal esoteric/spiritualists.

There are conservative literalists. There are conservative traditionalists. There are conservative esoteric/spiritualists.

Some of the liberal and conservative labels come from socio-political views. Some of the liberal and conservative labels come from views towards the authority of scripture or the church.

I thought like you Ruby, for a long time, that if someone wasn't a literalist that meant he was a liberal. Actually, a non-literal view towards much (not all) of scripture was the norm until fundamentalism arrived.

So much of Biblical interpretation is new to me. I was in a sect that used a mostly literal hermeunetic. They also taught that the Bible was basically dictated by God.

It's taken the past couple of years of re-educating myself that fundamentalism is not the norm. I've also come to appreciate that my views toward scripture and Christ, while progressive in many respects, are more "traditional" than liberal.

Thanks for letting me ramble.

[wil]

The voting system makes sense to me as the same debate has gone on for centuries.

So you take a phrase that is attributed to in the bible, and after extensive discussion and research you vote...and if I remember correctly they determine the following...

It is likely Jesus said this.
It is not likely he said it, but it is something he might of said, it is in the essence of his teachings
He may have said this.
He didn't say this.

And so in the 5 gospels the 'red' letters, turned Red, Pink, Grey, and Bold Black, all with commentary...it is a valuable read.

[flowperson]

Ruby, Luna, AR, Wil,

Thanks so much for your responses and clarifications. I knew we'd all meet in the middle of understanding in the end.

Oh, sometimes I wonder if I really did all of that stuff in a past life, or was I somehow thrust into in an alternative virtual reality by higher powers to test me ? Hmmmm...I'll have to do some more meditation on that.

flow....

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by wil

It is likely Jesus said this.
It is not likely he said it, but it is something he might of said, it is in the essence of his teachings
He may have said this.
He didn't say this.

Thanks for this imput, Wil. This makes sense because it is based on opinion or likihood, neither of which are absolutes. Not on black and white fact which is absolute. You simply can't vote away--or into existence--concrete historical fact.

And thanks, sorry I forget who said what, for explaining the difference between fundamentalist literalists and liberal literalists. My brain just drew a blank on that one, which I don't fully understand, given the time and energy I have put into the study of fundamentalist view of the Bible.

Flow, I'm glad we came to an understanding. *Shake*

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

First off there is absolutely no reason to believe this man didn't exist, he was documented by all sorts of people excluding the bible.

Actually, there is so much reason to believe he never existed that many people do. This includes some Christians.

I suppose the ultimate question is how much of biblical Jesus compares to historical Jesus? Is there such differences?

If art is any indication, then there are major irreconcilable differences. See the thread "What Jesus looked like" http://www.comparative-religion.com/...istianity.html.

Compare that with the blond, blue-eyed, fair-skinned Jesus many of us grew up with. The blond guy is the Jesus of Western Christian religion while the dark-skinned one is most likely the Jesus of history.

[flowperson]

[QUOTE
Flow, I'm glad we came to an understanding. *Shake*[/QUOTE]

*Shake* Isn't it strange just how much people can talk/write past each other and not even understand how it happened ? Just another of those mysteries of life I guess.

flow....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Jeannot

Thanks, Wil. From one heretic to another.

Ya aren't heretics...you're thinkers...

ya know, be alert! The world needs more "lerts"

v/r

Q

[flowperson]

Thanks Q !

flow....

[JustifiedByFaith]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

To us in the modern day, a lot of what Jesus is held to have done may seem remarkable - but in the ancient world a lot of it would be routine. People rising from the dead and the sick being healed would be - so far as I understand it - as routine to ancient peoples, as modern medicine is to us moderns.

Dear I, Brian,

What's really remarkable and unique about Jesus... wasn't so much the miracles He performed, but the fullfilled Old Testament prophesies concerning the coming Messiah! Without question, Jesus is the only one in history we can confidently say now, "Is the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

[JustifiedByFaith]

Originally Posted by Jeannot

JESUS


My basic position is that "Jesus" – or someone very like him – existed. But his name was not Jesus Christ. This name came later after a lot of politicization. His name was Joshua (or Jeshua) Bar Jusif (Joshua, son of Joseph).

Dear Jeannot,

Then can I assume by this statement that you do not believe the bible to be inspired by God?

"All Scripture is given by inspiration by God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproff, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..."

2 Timothy 3:6

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by JustifiedByFaith

Dear Jeannot,

Then can I assume by this statement that you do not believe the bible to be inspired by God?

"All Scripture is given by inspiration by God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproff, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..."

2 Timothy 3:6

What "Scripture" is this referring to?