FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-01-2001, 02:11 PM   #1
Bede
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post Son of God on the BBC/Discovery

I thought this was an excellent and balanced programme. Although it was presented by a self confessed agnostic it didn't indulge in all the trendy theories from the Jesus Seminar that has marred PBS programmes.

Also good to see the BBC with some religious content that can appeal to all.

Did anyone else see it?

Yours

Bede
 
Old 04-01-2001, 04:15 PM   #2
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Smile

I read that it won't be shown here in the US till Easter Sunday, on either TLC Discover, A&E or the History Channel, (can't remember which one) I think they are all owned by A&E.
 
Old 04-01-2001, 10:54 PM   #3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Does God also have a Daughter?
 
Old 04-02-2001, 12:38 AM   #4
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bede:
Although it was presented by a self confessed agnostic it didn't indulge in all the trendy theories from the Jesus Seminar that has marred PBS programmes. Bede</font>
Make no mistake: there is nothing "trendy" about the presuppositions expressed by the Jesus Seminar:

1. Some of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him.
2. The gospel accounts are made up of historical memory before the crucifixion and evangelical interpretation after it.
3. These "trendy" starting points represent a consensus among mainstream critical biblical scholars.

While this has been known to scholars for more than a century, IT IS NEWS TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

I challenge you to find a single quotation in anything published in the Jesus Seminar's name which makes the sweeping claim that the scholars involved are speaking for a consensus in their findings.

If you disagree with the specific results of the Jesus Seminar, please say so and be specific. Inerrancy is not the only legitimate approach to the Bible; to take Scripture seriously is not just taking it literally.

 
Old 04-02-2001, 07:58 AM   #5
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Aikido7, you need to read some other scholars. The Jesus Seminar does not speak for all scholars. There are many that reject their methodologies and many (if not most) of their conclusions.

R.E. Brown mentions them and many of their opponents in his book on The History of the NT (or something like that). Other authors I have read have also rejected the Seminar's conclusions. Not just "fundies".

Ish
 
Old 04-02-2001, 11:32 AM   #6
Ernest Sparks
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, OR USA
Posts: 1,248
Unhappy

from Aikido7:

I challenge you to find a single quotation in anything published in the Jesus Seminar's name which makes the sweeping claim that the scholars involved are speaking for a consensus in their findings.

If you disagree with the specific results of the Jesus Seminar, please say so and be specific. Inerrancy is not the only legitimate approach to the Bible; to take Scripture seriously is not just taking it literally.


from Ish:

Aikido7, you need to read some other scholars. The Jesus Seminar does not speak for all scholars. There are many that reject their methodologies and many (if not most) of their conclusions.

Ish,
I think you should:

1. READ first.
2. COMPREHEND what was written.
3, Then (and only then), REPLY.

Ernie
Ernest Sparks is offline  
Old 04-02-2001, 01:11 PM   #7
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Again, read my previous post. I can only add that I hope you read the New Testament with more rigor.

Participation in the Jesus Seminar is open to any biblical scholar with a Ph.D. or its equivalent. There are no ideological or theological litmus tests for membership and no one with the appropriate credentials has ever been turned away.

It is a collaborative enterprise and it is open to the public.

Since it was realized at the outset that there was scant possibility of devising a truly collaborative methodology, it was decided to let each scholar make decisions about the historicity of Jesus' sayings according to whatever method each scholar judged most appropriate. This method insured that there would never be a fixed standard of academic orthodoxy within the group.

Again, virtually all New Testament scholars (who are not fundamentalist apologists) maintain that the early Christian church turned Jesus into a spokesman for all their own beliefs about him. There are some within Christianity today who accept that Jesus did not claim to be God. For most believers, this is news--but it is nothing new to theologians and biblical scholars.

Because some in the media have
sensationalized this part of the work of the Jesus Seminar, it is not surprising many in the public arena has seen the group's work as provocative, radical and even threatening.

Remember: History has nothing to say about the truth of religious beliefs. For example, the Jesus Seminar collaboratively agrees that Jesus said "Blessed (or "Congratulations to you") are the poor; God's kingdom (or "God's domain") belongs to you." But whether the poor really are blessed is not something that historical inquiry can determine. Likewise, the Jesus Seminar agreed that the historical figure of Jesus probably did not say "There is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner that repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need to repent." This verse was deemed to be a later interpretation of the parable of the lost sheep that the evangelist Luke added to Jesus' words. But the fact that Jesus did not say it doesn't mean it is not true. That is an issue of theology--not history.
 
Old 04-02-2001, 01:17 PM   #8
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ish:
Aikido7, you need to read some other scholars. The Jesus Seminar does not speak for all scholars. Ish</font>
First, what scholars do you read and which would you have me read?

Second, the Jesus Seminar has never claimed to speak for all scholars. And since no one in scholarly NT history had ever before done an inventory and critical study of all the words (canonical and extracanonical) attributed to Jesus, this would be an impossibility on the face of it. Does that make sense to you, Ish?

[This message has been edited by aikido7 (edited April 02, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by aikido7 (edited April 02, 2001).]
 
Old 04-02-2001, 03:30 PM   #9
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Aikido7, Ernie,

Sorry, my last post wasn't very eloquent.

Anyway, I just get tired of seeing the Jesus Seminar hyped so much. They are not representative of NT scholarship and neither are their conclusions.

As far as the probabilities they assign to Jesus words, there is a certain randomness to the application of their methodology. In other words, they aren't always consistent.

Unfortunately, I don't have the necessary books in front of me, or I would show some of what I'm talking about (perhaps later).

Regardless, you said that you thought they were not "trendy" and you said:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Aikido7:
Because some in the media have sensationalized this part of the work of the Jesus Seminar, it is not surprising many in the public arena has seen the group's work as provocative, radical and even threatening.</font>
This quote makes it sound like the media has sought out their conclusions. This is a false impression. The Jesus Seminar has actively sought the media's attention. Crossan has an admitted agenda of getting the Seminar's results out to the public. They were behind Peter Jenning's special. They were behind many if not all of A&E's Mysteries of the Bible. Check these shows and you'll see many faces from the Jesus Seminar (especially Crossan). Crossan even says in one interview that their method of voting (colored beads) was intended to grab the media's attention.

These guys have an admitted agenda. Many other scholars disagree with them, but for some strange reason, their opinions are rarely if ever aired (probably because they restrict their findings to scholarly journals where they are supposed to be - not placing them on T.V. for "shock value" and "demythologizing").

Now who exactly is biased? Those seeking media attention, or those reporting their findings in scholarly journals?


P.S. - I have many good Crossan quotes on this issue if you want them.

Ish
 
Old 04-02-2001, 07:14 PM   #10
Ernest Sparks
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, OR USA
Posts: 1,248
Arrow

Ish,

I don't think either ABC News or PBS Frontline would accept one side of an argument without reasons. So it might be a good idea to ask them why their specials aren't balanced.

The way to counter a viewpoint you consider wrong is to counter point by point.

Here's some grist- (links)

(ABC News) The Search for Jesus

(PBS WGBH FRONTLINE) From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians

(PBS WGBH FRONTLINE) Apocalypse!

Ernie
Ernest Sparks is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:43 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.