Jesus Seminar

Originally posted by Nemesio
Well, there are other people -- present and past -- who do not think that a literal understanding of
this event is a requirement for Christianity. Bishop John Shelby Spong, former Bishop of the
Episcopal Diocese of Newark, New Jersey, would count as one of these people.

Nemesio

My authority is the bible, and it says Jesus rose from the dead.

Originally posted by josephw
My authority is the bible, and it says Jesus rose from the dead.

Yes, but what does that mean? You take it to be a literal statement. Others take it to be a
figurative one.

Nemesio

Originally posted by josephw
My authority is the bible, and it says Jesus rose from the dead.

Mine says that a woman was bodily transformed into a pillar of salt, and that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds.

Originally posted by whodey
Did you read the wiki story of the Ebionites?

"THE EARLIEST reference to a group that fits the description of the Ebionites appears in a text by Justin Martyr from 140. An unwarrented sect is mentioned that WAS estranged from the church and observed the Law of Moses, which it regarded as a universal obligation."

It seems that this group split form th ...[text shortened]... come closer to the disciples than the gnostics, however, I am still largely unimpressed.

Are you daft? Wiki is reporting what Justin Martyr said, but it doesn't mean that he was right. Justin Martyr was a proto-orthodox christian. Of course he's going to say that the Ebionites were heretics and his group represents the right belief. But he's wrong about that. It was the Ebionites who were the original christians and Justin who was the "heretic." Just because the proto-orthodox christians won out doesn't mean they were right.

The Ebionites had an adoptionist christology, which means that they thought Jesus was wholly human, born of the sexual union of Joseph and Mary, but that he was "adopted" by god at his baptism. At that time god infused him with the spirit of Christ. They did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus.

As for Matthew, it wasn't the Ebionites who edited the first two chapters out, it was the orthodox christians who put them in. It was the orthodox christians who reworked Matthew to make it fit their own theological teachings, not the other way around.

The writings of the Ebionites themselves have been almost wholly lost or destroyed. Our primary sources of knowledge about them, for better or worse, is from the writings of the proto-orthodox heresy hunters, like Irenaeus and Epiphanius. Because their opinion is obviously biased against the Ebionites, we have to do quite a bit of "reading between the lines" in our attempts to flesh out their theology.

Originally posted by whodey
So what did Christ accomplish? Was it a social utopia or were his efforts in vain?

What did Christ accomplish? Very little, it seems. His entire message was corrupted and turned into a cult centering around his personhood and supposed divinity. So now christians sit around and think that they can proclaim their faith in the supposed death and resurrection of Jesus and that the kingdom will be delivered into their laps. That wasn't what Jesus intended at all. He meant for us to build that "kingdom of god" ourselves by transforming society into an egalitarian, communal utopia.

The cause and effect has been totally upended. The kingdom won't be delivered to us out of the blue as we sit around violating all of Jesus' injunctions. Jesus said for his followers to build a just society in the here and now and god would then enter into it and make it the "kingdom of god."

Originally posted by josephw
I remember when you brought it up. I didn't reply because there's no point. Fundamentally, if one does not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then one isn't a christian.

Many of the early christians did not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. That mythology was a later addition.

Originally posted by josephw
My authority is the bible, and it says Jesus rose from the dead.

If you understood how your bible came to be written, I don't think you'd be so quick to take its contents as the literal truth. What the bible said and what Jesus said are two very different things.

Originally posted by rwingett
Many of the early christians did not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. That mythology was a later addition.

Prove it. By proving it I don't mean just by flashing a web site in front of us. Write out the proof and I will do the research. Thanks.

Originally posted by rwingett
What did Christ accomplish? Very little, it seems. His entire message was corrupted and turned into a cult centering around his personhood and supposed divinity. So now christians sit around and think that they can proclaim their faith in the supposed death and resurrection of Jesus and that the kingdom will be delivered into their laps. That wasn't what Je ...[text shortened]... ty in the here and now and god would then enter into it and make it the "kingdom of god."

Yep, there is no doubt about it. Christ was an abject failure. That is, in terms of producing a wordly kingdom in which there is equality in terms of creating an egaltarian, communal utopia. However, in terms of a spiritual kingdom he has been an absolute successs. For example, in my own spiritual journey, he has changed me for the better as well as many other people that I know. Also, Christ has created a spiritual kingdom here on earth in which people from all races and income levels may participate equally. His "church" has been spread to all the four corners of the earth and currently seems to be the dominant religion on earth today. How someone can call that a failure is beyond me.

Originally posted by rwingett

As for Matthew, it wasn't the Ebionites who edited the first two chapters out, it was the orthodox christians who put them in. It was the orthodox christians who reworked Matthew to make it fit their own theological teachings, not the other way around.

Better yet, why not use the book of Mark from whom it has been said the author of Matthew has drawn much of his material? Then lets look at the author of Mark who many scholars believe was the disciple of Peter from whom Christ said would be the "rock" upon whom he would build his church. Do you not find it strange that the place in which Peter preached and died is the same place that the church of Christ was founded and flourished and propogated? It also seems that Peter's disciple Mark is the one from whom the other authors of the 4 gospels drew much of their material from.

All I can say is that the tomb of Christ that Mark spoke of was empty!!!

Originally posted by rwingett
The writings of the Ebionites themselves have been almost wholly lost or destroyed. Our primary sources of knowledge about them, for better or worse, is from the writings of the proto-orthodox heresy hunters, like Irenaeus and Epiphanius. Because their opinion is obviously biased against the Ebionites, we have to do quite a bit of "reading between the lines" in our attempts to flesh out their theology.[/b]

Yes. Equally troubling are the remains from the UFO crash in Roswell have all but vanished. It appears the governmental conspiracy to hide such truth has also been a smashing success. 😛

Originally posted by rwingett
[b]Are you daft? Wiki is reporting what Justin Martyr said, but it doesn't mean that he was right. Justin Martyr was a proto-orthodox christian. Of course he's going to say that the Ebionites were heretics and his group represents the right belief. But he's wrong about that. It was the Ebionites who were the original christians and Justin who was the "heretic." Just because the proto-orthodox christians won out doesn't mean they were right.

If you are looking for a narrative history without a bias then I think you will be out of luck. All we can do is look for manuscripts in terms of what and when people believed certain things and from that ascertain what the truth was. So in terms of the early beliefs of the Ebionites, provide me with the earlies of writings that indicate that Christ was not resurrected.

Originally posted by whodey
Prove it. By proving it I don't mean just by flashing a web site in front of us. Write out the proof and I will do the research. Thanks.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

All I can do is to encourage you to look beyond the narrow parameters you have constructed for yourself. Research what the Jesus Seminar is saying. Research the historical Jesus. Research the Q gospel. Research the formative years of Christianity and see how differently it could have turned out. By restricting your study to what the bible eventually became, you're missing practically the whole story. These are fascinating topics, even for an atheist like myself. I should think someone who calls themselves a Christian would find them doubly so. The amount of literature available to the general public on these topics has literally exploded in recent years. As for myself, I've just started a new book: The Politics of Jesus: Rediscovering The True Revolutionary Nature of Jesus' Teachings and How They Have Been Corrupted, by Obery M. Hendricks, Jr.

Originally posted by rwingett
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

All I can do is to encourage you to look beyond the narrow parameters you have constructed for yourself. Research what the Jesus Seminar is saying. Research the historical Jesus. Research the Q gospel. Research the formative years of Christianity and see how differently it could have turned o ature of Jesus' Teachings and How They Have Been Corrupted, by Obery M. Hendricks, Jr.[/b]

Speaking of my own parameters, lets look at the Seminars parameters in regards to how the Seminar chose to reveal what the truth is about Jesus is. Wiki says,

"The Jesus Seminar, like the translation comittee who created the KJV and the Revised Standard Version of the Bible and the Novum Testamentum Greece, chose voting as the most effecient means of determining consensus in an assembled group. The system also lent itself to publicicty, which the Seminar actively pursued.

The fellows used a "bead system" to vote on the authenticity of about 500 statements and events. The color of the bead represented how sure the Fellow was that a saying or act was or was not authentic.

Red beads - indicate the voter believed Jesus did say the passage quoted, or something very much like the passage (3 points)
Pink beads - indicate the voter believed Jesus probably said something like the passage, (2 points)
Grey beads - indicate the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage, but it contains Jesus' ideas (1 point)
Black beads - indicate the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage - it comes from later admirers or a different tradition (0 points)

So what did they conclude?

1. Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great.
2. His mother's name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph.
3. Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem.
4. Jesus was an itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts.
4. Jesus pracitced healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic.
5. He did not walk on water, feed the multitude with loaves and fishes, change water into wine or raise Lazarus from the dead.
6. Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans
7. He was executed as a public nuisance, not for claiming to be the Son of God.
8. The empty tomb is a fiction - Jesus was not raised from the dead.
9. Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter, and Mary.

Who knows how they arrived at such decisions unless one actually runs out and buys the book. However, they seem to have stepped on the toes of pretty much everyone of faith in regards to these conclusions. For example, Chrisitians no longer can think of Jesus as divine but a mere mortal who was simply "enlightened". Muslims must throw out the notion that Christ was not crucified on the cross. Also, Peter, his chosen disciple, actually believed that Christ was resurrected and should not be considered a true Muslim etc.


The refreshing aspect to all of this is that they feel compelled to believe that Christ had "healing powers" of some sort. Also, I share the belief that his appointed disciple Peter believed that Christ has arisen. Perhaps they have more conclusive reasons for why than I do in believing such things.

Forgive me if I find these finding suspect. After all, who were the judges? It seems that a few members were reputable scholars, however, most are relatively unknown or undistinguished in the field of Biblical studies. In fact, one such panel member, Paul Verhoeven, holds a Ph.D in mathamatics and Physics and is best known as a film director. In fact, of the 74 "scholars" listed in thier publication "the five gospels", only 14 would be leading figures in the field of the NT. More than half are basically unknowns, who have published only 2 or 3 articles. Eighteen of the fellows have published nothing at all in NT sutdies. Also of concern, 36 of those scholars, almost half, have a degree from or currently teach at one of 3 schools, Harvard, Claremont, or Vanderbilt, all considered to favor "liberal" interpretations of the NT. If you think you can completly divorce raw data from personal bias I think your are kidding yourself. After all, ALL raw data has an element of interpretation including theology. I think the kicker, however, was that the Seminar sought the attention of the media with regards to their findings and was aired on ABC "The Search for Jesus" and was hosted by Peter Jennings. How many reputable scholars do that?

However, my main beef is that Jesus wrote NOTHING about himself. Therefore, all we have to go on are the 12 that he had chosen. What did they beleive? After all, he chose them for a reason. Apparently they agree that Peter thought him to have been resurrected!! Here is what one critic said on the matter.

"Craig Bomberg notes that if the Jesus Seminar's findings are to be believed then "it requires the assumption that someone, about a generation removed from the events in question, radically transformed the authentic information about Jesus that was circulating at the time, supreimposed a body of material four times as large, fabricated almost entirely out of whole cloth, while the church suffered sufficient collective amnesia to accept the transformation as legitimate."

Therefore, I would assume that the scholars in question should instead focus their attention on the 12 apostles whom Jesus chose since they are the ONLY living testament to what he was about. All I can say is where did the 12 go and what did they do once Jesus had left them? Did they not all have a radical transformation and go throughout all the earth proclaiming the "good news"? Did they not also give their lives for what they believed? Historically I think this is a given. The question then becomes why?

So after hearing my rebuttal, all those who have read it please vote using the proper voting method as mentioned above. Remember a red bead is 3 points, a pink bead is 2 points, a grey bead is one point and a black bead is no points.

Originally posted by whodey
Speaking of my own parameters, lets look at the Seminars parameters in regards to how the Seminar chose to reveal what the truth is about Jesus is. Wiki says,

"The Jesus Seminar, like the translation comittee who created the KJV and the Revised Standard Version of the Bible and the Novum Testamentum Greece, chose voting as the most effecient means of dete ...[text shortened]... bead is 2 points, a grey bead is one point and a black bead is no points.

I've only recently become acquainted with the Jesus Seminar myself, so I don't profess to be an expert on their conclusions, or even agree with them all. But their research into the historical Jesus, coupled with the research of many others, is an important and compelling body of work that deserves to be looked at. I don't expect one Wikipedia article to undermine 2,000 years of accumulated mythology, but if you look into some of the work that has been done in this field then you may end up having some of your assumptions challenged. If your belief comes out intact, then it will be the stronger for it.