Truthdig - Jesus: The�Man, The�Myth

Truthdig - Jesus: The�Man, The�Myth

This is a link to a very interesting and well-written article about Jesus. I don't really have any comments to offer off the top of my head, but if you get a chance, read the article. It is thought provoking.


Sean said…
ahh! no offense, but that's crap! if you're going to take the Bible as remotely true, everything this guy says is baloney. some recent (last 200 years) 'scholars' have wanted to 'demythologize' the Bible, but their methods are totally bogus.

+ Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.
+ 'Son of Man' was an apocalyptic title akin to Son of God.
+ On this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
+ Before Abraham was, I AM.
+ Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink of His blood you shall not have life within you.

- 'The Quest for the Historical Jesus' is bogus.
- the Jesus Seminar is bogus. they vote on whether or not they think Jesus said the words attributed to Him in the Bible and print a 4-color version. talk about bad methodology.
- NO ONE in the early church thought 'the Gospel of Thomas' was authoritative (we know b/c no one quotes it).
+ the 'Q' idea is actually probably right. whoa, i'm stunned ;-)

don't make me come over there and haul you into your priest! ;-)

i'm not going on past the first page and not taking the time right now to reference my sources. email me if you want to talk about this more, ok?
Eric said…
Thanks for the feedback, Sean. And, of course, no offense taken.

I don't necessarily endorse The Jesus Seminar, or its conclusions, but I am intrigued with its stated mission of "determining what Jesus, as a historical figure, may or may not have said or done." Understanding Jesus in a historical context only helps to strengthen my faith. Thus, I don't believe that the "quest for a historical Jesus" is "bogus." Furthermore, I don't consider such a quest to be inconsistent with my faith in Jesus as the Son of God. Indeed, I think my ability to ask such questions is a gift from God.

Now, I definitely take the Bible to be at least "remotely" true. However, my understanding is that the Bible is a compilation of many writings that were compiled for religious, practical and political purposes. I do take the Bible writings to be the inspired Word of God, written by human authors over a long time span, using historically consistent literary techniques.

As for methodology, I agree that voting to determine the likelihood of historical reality is not authoritative. I did a little bit (very little) of reading on the Jesus Seminar, and they readily admit that voting does not determine the truth. However, it is a good way to reach a consensus among a multitude of biblical scholars. Glancing through the list of Fellows and reading some of their qualifications, it doesn't seem like they are the type to have pre-set agendas. However, I'd obviously have to look deeper to form a more confident opinion. As they note, their "voting" methodology is consistent with the methodology of historical translation committees (including those that assembled the KJV of the Bible) in which members of a committee would review proposed translations, and vote on which was most authentic.

In summary, I don't feel "threatened", for lack of a better term, about most of the conclusions of The Jesus Seminar.

Popular posts from this blog

Proudly Humble?

Vajentic Family Western Odyssey: Week 1, Day 1 (Saturday, July 13, 2013)

Beowulf Vocabulary