Please Ernest, try not to be so naive in the future, okay? Did you actually WATCH the program on ABC? Did you notice that the ONLY scholar that either wasn't from the Jesus Seminar or actually took the Bible seriously was N.T. Wright, and he got perhaps 3 whole minutes of airtime in the show?

My goodness, but if the sceptics around here start thinking that the television media really isn't biased, what next will they believe?

This was cute Ernie. Thanks for the chuckle.

BTW, what argument from the JS do you personally find convincing? No sense debunking the whole thing right? I'd rather focus on the pet theories from the fans.

Nomad

Point-by-point Response to ABC’s Peter Jennings Reporting: The Search for Jesus

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
Anyway, I just get tired of seeing the Jesus Seminar hyped so much.

Noted!

They are not representative of NT scholarship and neither are their conclusions.

They ARE representative of NT scholarship and they operate as collaborators toward a consensus.

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.

The "randomness" you speak of is decided by a vote by consensus. Biblical translators vote by committee as well. Methodology is hard to devise when you have a diverse gathering of biblical scholars. Please read my previous post on this point. If you want consistency, see a council of bishops.

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.

Much of the media has actively misrepresented and exaggerated the conclusions of the Jesus Semninar. The media has also mistrepresented Scripture itself. One scholar noted for reporters of the common material in Matthew and Luke in which Jesus talks of being denigrated by his first-century peers as "a glutton and a drunkard." The next day's headlines read "BIBLE SCHOLAR SAYS JESUS A DRUNK!" You are correct, however. A major aim of the Jesus Seminar is to promote biblical literacy.

They were behind Peter Jenning's special. They were behind many if not all of A&E's Mysteries of the Bible.

"Behind" borders on conspiracy theories of the paranoid. The Jesus Seminar is merely out front with many of the presuppositions scholars have held in unpublic scholarship for nearly 200 years. Because of their aims and conclusions, the Jesus Seminar is an invaluable window on the sea changes in Jesus scholarship. News always reports on what is new, what is different. Most believers and skeptics do not know anything about the new research on historical Jesus studies. ABC News was right to involve the Jesus Seminar because it presented a balance to what most people think the Bible says about Jesus.

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.

Again, noted. The Jesus Seminar is able to make itself known!

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").

Interesting comment-- "where they are supposed to be"

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

If one's aim is to further the spread of knowledge about biblical scholarship, try to repair the gap between the seminaries and the universities seperating the public in the pews and the unchurched, does one hide one's lamp under a basket?

[This message has been edited by aikido7 (edited April 03, 2001).]



[This message has been edited by aikido7 (edited April 03, 2001).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
Did you notice that the ONLY scholar that either wasn't from the Jesus Seminar or actually took the Bible seriously was N.T. Wright, and he got perhaps 3 whole minutes of airtime in the show?

Wright sees the Bible as a complex blend of theology and fiction--as does Paula Fredricksen who was also on the program. Hank the Bible Answer Man (whose link you posted) has had his mind made up for years as to what kinds of documents the gospels are before he even opens his mouth about them. I don't think biblical scholarship has any reason to take him any more seriously than Josh McDowell.

My goodness, but if the sceptics around here start thinking that the television media really isn't biased, what next will they believe?

By interviewing members of the Jesus Seminar, ABC News gave voice to the other side against the bias of a largely biblically illiterate viewing public.

This was cute Ernie. Thanks for the chuckle.

Another chuckle is when President Bush refered to Jesus as his favorite political philosopher.



[This message has been edited by aikido7 (edited April 03, 2001).]

You have missed my point aikido. I watched the program you are talking about, and the program gave so little time to Wright in comparison to the Jesus Seminar scholars like Crossan and Funk that it was a pathetic display of blantant bias. As for Fredricksen, she was so appalled be how the program edited her comments that she went on a radio program to "correct" the misrepresentation of her views.

For his part, Wright is much closer to what many scholars believe than is Robert Funk or John Crossan. The fact that the show deliberately refused to present a balanced argument of scholarly opinion is disappointing to say the least.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Hank the Bible Answer Man (whose link you posted) has had his mind made up for years as to what kinds of documents the gospels are before he even opens his mouth about them. I don't think biblical scholarship has any reason to take him any more seriously than Josh McDowell.</font>

All I can say here is that you are free to attack the man of course. On the other hand, you could also choose to reply to his specific points. The choice is yours, but I would much rather hear you make a positive case for your beliefs than to trash someone with whom you disagree.

Hmm... so us poor dumb hicks just don't understand real scholarship or the Bible huh?

I'll tell you what aikido. How about you actually defend what the Jesus Seminar and its supporters believe, offer your evidence, and we'll see where it takes us.

And this is related to the topic how exactly?

Please try to be serious here aikido, and offer your arguments, supports and evidence. I will then do the same, and we can see how it turns out. After all, that is how a discussion takes place.

I look forward to hearing your points.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited April 03, 2001).]

I wonder why Nomad is much more worked up about members of the Jesus Seminar appearing on TV than all those Fundie TV evangelists appearing on TV.

And the same could be said about Bede.

Do you intentionally miss the point? Television preachers are appearing on their own shows and are unabashedly religious in their viewpoint. But if ABCNEWS did a special on religion, or even Christianity, and interviewed 10 fundamentalists and only one Methodist or Catholic, then yes, I think there would be grounds to complain.

Ernest Sparks

nomad {is an island, entire of itself?}

Please Ernest, try not to be so naive in the future, okay? Did you actually WATCH the program on ABC? Did you notice that the ONLY scholar that either wasn't from the Jesus Seminar or actually took the Bible seriously was N.T. Wright, and he got perhaps 3 whole minutes of airtime in the show? My goodness, but if the sceptics around here start thinking that the television media really isn't biased, what next will they believe. This was cute Ernie. Thanks for the chuckle.

NOT OK! I don't stew in your conspiratorial sauces. As for TSFJ, I watched it and recorded it and have reviewed it several times. Was Jesus perhaps a Baptist convert, who split from John and started his own branch in Galilee? Was his Kingdom of God to be a revolution that would bring down the imperial power and re-establish God's rule over Judea and (eventually) the world? Did Jesus gradually assume the mantle of Messiah and King? Interesting questions. What about the delivery of the Gospels (,including the extra ones)? When? I will plead in vain for excision of the 'bias' business, a tired subject. Bias is a perfectly good concept in sewing and statistical estimating procedures. Otherwise, I am bored with hearing about it in a whine tone. I think I will listen to TSFJ again! I was interested in Jennings' comment that he didn't find any conservative scholars that were actually searching for a historic Jesus, but only people who said they already knew the answers. First, I will read the CRI responses.

cute Ernie

[This message has been edited by Ernest Sparks (edited April 03, 2001).]

Ernest Sparks

Is this the same BBC program?

(DISCOVERY CHANNEL)Jesus: the Complete Story

Ernie




[This message has been edited by Ernest Sparks (edited April 03, 2001).]

Yes they are Ernie. What and who have you read on the subjects involved?

See my thread on Redating the Books of the New Testament on this discussion board. Anything you would have to add would be welcome.

Umm... do these actually apply when studying history? And here I thought sceptics were interested in unbiased presentation of the facts.

My suggestion is that you read some books. Homer (Simpson) was wrong Ernie. Not all of the answers can be found on TV.

I must have missed that part, but if he said it, that is a real howler. On the other hand, it may also be a lie, but we will never know will we?

Fair enough. I wouldn't mind hearing what you think is the best evidence to support any particular viewpoint. That would at least be the beginning of an interesting discussion.

Nomad