Very interesting. Thank you for posting that.
200 religious scholars and academics agree that the whole story is just that, a story? Watch how it's either ignored or ridiculed by the apologist(s).
Lol. It doesn't matter. He isn't the first. They are all the same, mostly not rebuking the evidence given and ignoring it, or doing as Randy did and just hit you with a lot of apologetic evidence. The problem is with Jesus' existence and Creationism is that we've seen all or most of it, so rebutting isn't that hard. They don't change their mind, they just eventually leave. But he could be back. Might be combing every apologist site he can find and loading up with more "ammunition"
I've been on here for 6 years off and on, and I've seen like 3 people that actually realized they were wrong. They are a hard headed crew.
So why Randy, do you use the writings of heretics ... does the Pope know?
So the Romans crucified hundreds of Jews, Nazareth as a city is not known to have existed until the 2nd century, there was not a tax levied and no census required, Galilee was not a roman province.
And the rest. Many of the aspects of Jesus including divine origin, birthed by a virgin, resurrected after 3 days- all borrowed from previous deities. One more time- Jesus of the bible may have been based on a real human, of which there were many to choose from, but biblical divine Jesus is an invention, a composite made up of various religious figures (look up Mithraism- a popular religion of the Roman soldiers borrowed from Persian sources)
And one more time. the reason we have Catholicism is because Constantine saw the value of borrowing his mother's religion and using it as a political tool to keep Rome together. It isn't divine, its politics.
Quote from: marom1963 on May 21, 2016, 09:23:31 PM
The Catholicism that we know surely did not exist before Constantine - actually before Gregory the Great - but not in any form before Constantine. Constantine was the one who gave the Church its status as a national religion w/the full power of the imperium behind it. Remember - Rome was still THE World Power at the time (at least in the West).
That has all the potency of saying that the United States that we know surely did not exist before World War II.
Or the marom1963 that we know today did not exist when he was five years old.
OF COURSE the Church has grown over the centuries. Jesus likened it to a seed that would grow up to be the largest of trees. See the development there?
"The trouble with this history is that there are no historical facts whatsoever to back it up. Distinctively Catholic beliefsâ€"the papacy, priesthood, invocation of saints, sacraments, veneration of Mary, salvation by something besides "faith alone," purgatoryâ€"were evident long before the fourth century, before Constantine. They were believed by Christians before this supposed "paganization" took place. Another difficulty is that there are no historical recordsâ€"none at allâ€"which imply an underground Fundamentalist church existed from the early fourth century to the Reformation. In those years there were many schisms and heresies, most now vanished, but present-day Fundamentalists cannot find among them their missing Fundamentalist church. There were no groups that believed in all or even most, of the doctrines espoused by the Protestant Reformers (e.g. sola scriptura, salvation by "faith alone," and an invisible church). No wonder Fundamentalist writers dislike discussing Church history!
"Since the Christian Church was to exist historically and be like a city set on a mountain for all to see (Matt. 5:14), it had to be visible and easily identifiable. A church that exists only in the hearts of believers is not visible and is more like the candle hidden under the bushel basket (Matt. 5:15). But any visible church would necessarily be an institutional church that would need an earthly head. It would need an authority to which Christians could turn for the final resolution of doctrinal and disciplinary disputes. Christ appointed Peter and his successors to that position.
"Christ designated Peter head of the Church when he said, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Fundamentalists, desiring to avoid the natural sense of the passage, say "rock" refers not to Peter, but to his profession of faith or to Christ himself. But Peter’s profession of faith is two sentences away and can’t be what is meant. Similarly, the reference can’t be to Christ. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a quite different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4â€"8) does not mean Peter was not appointed the earthly foundation. The apostles were also described as foundation stones in a sense (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), meaning that Christ is not the only person the Bible speaks of as being the Church’s foundation. In one sense the foundation was Christ, in another it was the apostles, and in another it was Peter. In Matthew 16:18 Christ has Peter in mind. He himself would be the Church’s invisible foundation since he was returning to heaven, from where he would invisibly rule the Church. He needed to leave behind a visible authority, one people could locate when searching for religious truth. That visible authority is the papacy."
Christian History
http://www.catholic.com/library/Fundamentalist_or_Catholic.asp
Here is the first "reason":
Quote(1) Jesus Seminar
The Jesus Seminar was a collaborative effort of approximately 200 professionally-trained specialists in the field of religion tasked with the goal to cut through the myth and expose the historical Jesus. Membership was limited to scholars with advanced academic degrees (Ph.D. or equivalent) in religious studies or related disciplines from accredited universities worldwide and to published authors who were recognized authorities in the field of religion (by special invitation only). The task force convened on and off from 1985 to 2006.
http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects/the-jesus-seminar/
The principal finding was that the quotes and deeds of Jesus as written in the Gospels are mostly mythical. In fact, only 18% of the sayings and 16% of the deeds attributed to Jesus were thought to be authentic. The scholars used cross-cultural anthropological studies to set the general background, narrowing in on the history and society of first-century Palestine, and used textural analysis along with anthropological, historical, and archaeological evidence.
Other findings of the group included:
Jesus of Nazareth was born during the reign of Herod the Great.
His mother’s name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph.
Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem.
Jesus was an itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts.
Jesus practiced faith healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic.
He did not walk on water, feed the multitude with loaves and fishes, change water into wine or raise Lazarus from the dead.
Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans.
He was executed as a public nuisance, not for claiming to be the Son of God.
The empty tomb is a fiction â€" Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead.
Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter and Mary Magdalene.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar
The significance of this effort is that it is the first time that Jesus’s life has been objectively analyzed by a team of highly qualified reviewers. As such, it remains the best effort to date to ascertain the true historical Jesus, stripped of the myths that have been attached to him over the centuries. Although many religious leaders objected to the findings, it must be acknowledged that the level of effort, the range of resources used, and the qualifications of the reviewers lend much weight to their conclusions.
Are you aware that the site also has a page for responses to or refutations of these "reasons": http://www.kyroot.com/?page_id=1299IOW, the work that you are asking me to do is already underway and available at the very site you are crowing about! Moreover, there are thousands (if not millions) of books, online articles and YouTube videos available for anyone interested in hearing the believers' response to these "reasons". Christians have been dealing with objections like these for 2,000 years...do you honestly think we cannot answer them?
This website is just the latest compilation produced by someone who is clearly ignorant of how Christians have responded in the past...another "atheist-come-lately" who thinks he has found something new.
By the way,
atheists Sam Harris and Bill Mahr have discredited at least one of the Jesus Seminar's "participants". See that in
red below.
Here is Gary Shandle's rebuttal of that first "reason":
1. The Jesus SeminarI find it interesting that Mr. Runyan starts with the Jesus Seminar, a self-promoting, self-proclaimed group of scholars. I welcome this first point for two reasons. First, if one were to form an argument against christianity, supporting scholars are the first place to start. Second, this is the first time that I am taking a deeper, critical look at the Jesus Seminar.
In order to look at their work critically, we must investigate a few things. First, we need to investigate the supposed group of scholars themselves. Second, we need to investigate their methods. Third, we need to put into context what they are saying.
The Jesus Seminar became popular through mainstream media on shows such as the ABC News program, “The Search for Jesus†hosted by news anchor Peter Jennings. The late Dr. Robert W. Funk founded the Jesus Seminar in 1985. He chose 30 scholars to start. They currently boast of more than 200 critical scholars.
The Jesus Seminar speaks as if it is part of the mainstream in scholarship. However, when one compares their membership to the more-than-5000 full-time scholars of The Society of Biblical Literature (1) or to the American Academy of Religion (2), an organization of 9000 scholars, the Jesus Seminar is but a speck of dust in the scholarly world.
The Jesus Seminar represents less than 1% of Bible scholars. When one looks more closely at their supposed 200 members, a few interesting things show up.
First, in their best selling book, “The Five Gospelsâ€, only 74 scholars took part in this project. This book records all the conclusions of the research done by the Jesus Seminar. The other 126 supposed scholars either just teach the conclusions at public seminars, or are simply on their mailing list.
Second, when one looks critically at the meager 74 scholars that took part in the research, he or she would discover that only 14 would be leading figures in the field of New Testament studies. Another 20 have published a few articles and are names recognizable to most New Testament scholars. The remaining 40 are unknowns. They include recent graduates or students of an original charter member, a movie producer, and teachers.
As Mr. Runyan noted, membership is open to scholars with advanced academic degrees (Ph.D. or equivalent) in religious studies or related disciplines from accredited universities worldwide or published authors who are recognized authorities in the field of religion (by special invitation only). However, of the 200 supposed scholars, only 34 meet these requirements. The following are just a few examples:
Paul Verhoeven is a film director who made such classics as Robocop, Basic Instinct and Showgirls. He has no degree in biblical studies. He graduated with a degree in mathematics and physics from the University of Leiden. He has no published work related to the Bible before 2010. He is clearly no scholar and meets none of the requirements.
James Breech is a financial advisor, not a scholar. He had no published work prior to the Jesus Seminar.
William E. Arnal joined the Jesus Seminar fresh out of college. He carried out his doctoral work at the University of Toronto, under the direction of John Kloppenborg, one of the original charter members. Without any true experiece, he is merely a follower, not a leader.
Martin L. Appelt is a complete unknown. A google search only shows, “Juvenile Court Officer 4 for the Judicial Department in Iowa.†Not sure if this is the same person. Either way, his credentials cannot be confirmed. He is clearly not a leading critical scholar.
Karen Armstrong has no degree in religious studies. She was a nun who left the convent. She had no published work until 1993, the same year as the best selling book of the Jesus Seminar was produced.
Mainstream scholars (real, professionally trained critical scholars) have criticized her work since her beginnings.
Even atheists such as Sam Harris and Bill Mahr have criricized her. One article (3) states the following:
QuoteThe word "scholar" is best applied to people who devote themselves to study of focused material, and achieve certification from others who have studied and gained expertise in that same material. Scholars perform original research. Scholars produce original, peer-reviewed publications. Scholars are circumspect about the public statements they make on which they claim authority. A scholar might say, "My research has been on medieval knighthood; therefore, I am not qualified to speak about soldiers in the Roman Empire." Armstrong does not meet any of these criteria of scholarship. Armstrong was, first, a nun. She left the convent and attempted to embark on an academic career. She tried to write a dissertation about the English poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson. Her dissertation was rejected. She did not receive her desired degree. She left the university.
Armstrong does not perform original research in original languages. She does not publish with university presses. Armstrong is a popularizer, that is, she reads original research by real scholars, digests it, and presents her digested version to the public. There's nothing inherently wrong with being a popularizer...The problem with Armstrong is her obvious bias. Armstrong has been widely criticized for cherry picking facts...None of these statements stand up to serious scrutiny.
It soon becomes clear why the Jesus Seminar is, “by special invitation only.†This is not a group of professionally trained critical scholars. This is one scholar, Dr. Robert W. Funk, with an agenda. He found less than 15 other scholars who would agree, by large, with his thinking. Then they recruited some unknowns who would also agree and called them scholars.
Mr. Runyan states that the Jesus Seminar was, “tasked with the goal to cut through the myth and expose the historical Jesus.†However, Robert Funk’s agenda, and true mission statement, becomes clear long before any research took place.
On March 21-24, 1985, the Jesus Seminar held its first meeting in Berkeley, California. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the mission of the Jesus Seminar, and how their reserch would work. Funk made his mission obvious. During the opening remarks he said, “What we need is a new fiction that takes as its starting point the central event in the Judeo-Christian drama and reconciles that middle with a new story that reaches beyond old beginnings and endings. In sum, we need a new narrative of Jesus, a new gospel, if you will, that places Jesus differently in the grand scheme, the epic story.†(4)
The mission was clearly not, “to cut through the myth and expose the historical Jesus†as Mr. Runyan stated. Instead, the Jesus Seminar was tasked with creating a new Jesus and re-writing the gospels. They wanted a Jesus that fit in better with the current culture.
The Jesus Seminar completely misses it:
“You are being fooled by those who deliberately twist the truth concerning Christ. Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including us or even an angel from heaven, who preaches a different kind of Good News.†â€" Galatians 1:7-8
“You happily put up with whatever anyone tells you, even if they preach a different Jesus than the one we preach, or a different kind of Spirit than the one you received, or a different kind of gospel than the one you believed.†â€" 2 Corinthians 11:4
Funk continues, “The fiction of Revelation keeps many common folk in bondage to ignorance and fear. We require a new, liberating fiction, one that squares with the best knowledge we can now accumulate and one that transcends self-serving ideologies. And we need a fiction that we recognize to be fictive.â€
It is obvious that the conclusions about Jesus would be radically different than the Bible long before research took place. Dr. Funk already knew the conclusions he wanted, recruited people to give it authority, and used the media to drive it down the throats of anyone who would believe his nonsense.
The Jesus Seminar quickly loses credibility when examined, yet when one investigates their methods, it gets even worse. One thing that stands out in their book,â€The Five Gospels†is the, “rules of evidence.â€
Scholars should have rules which guide them to evaluate evidence carefully and objectively. However, the rules the Jesus Seminar came up with are quite peculiar. Here are four examples taken from pages 22-23, 32:
“Words borrowed from the fund of common lore or the Greek scriptures are often put on the lips of Jesus.â€
“The evangelists frequently attribute their own statements to Jesus.â€
“Jesus rarely makes pronouncements or speaks about himself in the first person.â€
“Jesus makes no claim to be the Anointed, the messiah.â€
It is quite clear that these are not rules. These are conclusions. The “rules of evidence†tell us what Jesus said, or did not say, before the research even started. This is the extreme bias that repeatedly shows up in the work of the Jesus Seminar. Yet, the Jesus Seminar’s own definition of a critical scholar states:
“critical scholarship in the biblical field does not permit special pleading on the basis of theological doctrine or other bias.†(5)
The Bible says Jesus claimed to be the messiah. One of the Jesus Seminar’s “rules of evidence†is that he did not. This is extreme theological bias. The Fellows of the Jesus Seminar do not even qualify as critical scholars based on their own definition of a critical scholar!
Another thing that stands out is their voting method. The Jesus Seminar used colored beads to determine what Jesus said:
Red: Jesus said it
Pink: He might have said something similar
Grey: He didn’t say it, but it may include His ideas
Black: Definately didn’t say it.
The real problem was not with the bead voting system. The problem was how the beads were weighted. Black beads held the most weight, followed by grey, then pink, and finally red. This allowed the results to be predetermined because a few black beads could show that Jesus did not say it even though the majority of scholars agreed that He did say it.
For example, on page 232 of “The Five Gospelsâ€, 58% voted red or pink for the parable of the two sons in Matthew 21:28-31. Yet, it is colored grey. While the majority agreed that Jesus either said it, or something like it, the final conclusion is that He did not say it.
Furthermore, in the opening remarks of the first meeting, Dr. Funk stated, “we are committed to public accountability.†However, the Jesus Seminar never holds up to this. The voting beads were dropped secretly into boxes. No one could be held accountable for his or her vote. And if the voting system was not bad enough, the documents they use are highly unreliable.
The Jesus Seminar focuses a lot of attention on the “Q†document. There is not even one copy of this document in existence. No one knows if it even existed. It is a hypothetical document based on the same passages in Matthew & Luke.
The “M†and “L†documents are also hypothetical documents based on information exclusive to Matthew and Luke. Once again, no one knows if they even existed.
The “Gospel of Thomas†is the main source for the Jesus Seminar. It is a late document written between 150-200 A.D. It adds no new information about Jesus that is not already included in at least one of the four gospels. It is not a historical document and features no narrative. It is simply a document showing that Jesus lived and that His sayings were still being talked about 120-170 years after His death.
Some atheists buy right into the findings of the Jesus Seminar without any research or critical thinking, assuming that they have found another argument against christianity. But when one is searching for the truth, he or she will discover a group of unqualified self-proclaimed scholars with an agenda to rewrite the gospel.
Finally, we must understand what the Jesus Seminar is saying with their results. Dr. John Dominic Crossan was co-chair of the Jesus Seminar for its first decade. In a debate against Dr. James White in 2005 (6), Dr. Crossan clearly explains his position. He accepts the Bible as authentic.
Where Dr. Crossan differs, is that he does not believe the apostles wrote what Jesus said word-for-word. He believes the apostles used parables to explain the teachings of Jesus much the same as Jesus used parables to teach His followers. He stated that just because the words written are not the exact words of Jesus does not mean the teachings are not authentic. He argues that the teachings are in fact authentic.
In conclusion, the Jesus Seminar is a group of mostly unqualified self-proclaimed scholars with an agenda to rewrite the gospel. They use a flawed voting system and unreliable documents to produce their desired results even when the majority vote in favor. They popularize their conclusions through the use of news and media, passing them off as if they are the consensus of most scholars.
While the Jesus Seminar does still hold some seminars, they have mostly vanished from public view. The Jesus Seminar was such a failure that some of its members formed a new group called the Jesus Project. Although the Jesus Project never took off, it proves the failure of the Jesus Seminar.
Of the 95 Fellows listed on the Westar website, I have found only five that list the Jesus Seminar in their credentials. The others recognize that the horrible scholarship is an embarrisment to their careers. (7, 8, 11) Those that have passed on do not even list it in their obituaries. (9, 10, 11)
The Jesus Seminar is not a very good argument to show that christianity is false. In fact, it shows the opposite. The evidence for the christian scriptures is so strong that the only way they could make it work is to hide behind the media, passing their results off as mainstream scholarship.
When one has to go the lengths that the Jesus Seminar took just to show another Jesus, it adds to the credibility of the scriptures. The Jesus Seminar proves the reliability of the christian scriptures.
1. http://www.sbl-site.org/SBLDashboard.aspx
2. https://www.aarweb.org/about
3. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/11/karen_armstrong_is_wrong_wrong_wrong_on_bill_maher.html
4. http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects/jesus-seminar-opening-remarks/
5. http://www.westarinstitute.org/membership/westar-fellows/what-is-a-critical-scholar/
6. https://youtu.be/BIX7eqTllEc
7. Harold W. Attridge, one of the 14 scholars that is recognized. Has an impressive list of credentials, but leaves out the Jesus Seminar. â€" http://divinity.yale.edu/attridge
8. Richard A. Edwards â€" http://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/law/staff/edwards/
9. William A. Beardslee obituary â€" One of the 14 recognized scholars and an original charter member. â€" http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/09/national/09BEAR.html
10. Richard L. Arthur obituary â€" http://www.mcnallywatson.com/home/index.cfm?action=mobile:obituaries.view&id=1990753&FH_ID=12030
11. R.G. Hammerton-Kelly has quite an impressive list of credentials. The Jesus Seminar is not listed in his bio http://www.hamerton-kelly.com/ or in his obituary. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/july/hamerton-kelly-obit-071813.html
A lot of the great men of history were momma's boys ;-) Consider Alexander.
Plus ... the orthodoxy initially established at Nicea ... was Arianism. The anti-Arians had another 175 years before they overcame that. And neither Arianism nor anti-Arianism existed prior to the early 4th century.
Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christiansâ€
Yes, much like today, those that are followers/supporters of trump are called trumpetteres!