quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ish: Obviously, there is not only a problem with Christian bias as is shown above by the founder of the Jesus Seminar, Funk. Rodahi also reflects Funk's bias and interprets his information in the light of his world-view.
Rodahi: Where has Ish shown that Robert Funk is biased? Furthermore, where has he shown that I reflect Funk's bias?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Let me help you rodahi.

Oh, thank you, Nomad. Where would any of us be without your "help?"

[b]Nomad: From The Coming Radical Reformation Twenty-one Theses by Robert W. Funk


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theology
1. The God of the metaphysical age is dead. There is not a personal god out there external to human beings and the material world…
2. The doctrine of special creation of the species died with the advent of Darwinism and the new understanding of the age of the earth and magnitude of the physical universe…
3. The deliteralization of the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis brought an end to the dogma of original sin as something inherited from the first human being. Death is not punishment for sin, but is entirely natural…
4. The notion that God interferes with the order of nature from time to time in order to aid or punish is no longer credible, in spite of the fact that most people still believe it. Miracles are an affront to the justice and integrity of God, however understood.
5. Miracles are conceivable only as the inexplicable; otherwise they contradict the regularity of the order of the physical universe.
Prayer is meaningless when understood as requests addressed to an external God for favor or forgiveness and meaningless if God does not interfere with the laws of nature. Prayer as praise is a remnant of the age of kingship in the ancient Near East and is beneath the dignity of deity. Prayer should be understood principally as meditation—as listening rather than talking—and as attention to the needs of neighbor.

Christology

6. We should give Jesus a demotion. It is no longer credible to think of Jesus as divine. Jesus' divinity goes together with the old theistic way of thinking about God.
7. The plot early Christians invented for a divine redeemer figure is as archaic as the mythology in which it is framed… We must find a new plot for a more credible Jesus.
8. The doctrine of the atonement—the claim that God killed his own son in order to satisfy his thirst for satisfaction—is subrational and subethical. This monstrous doctrine is the stepchild of a primitive sacrificial system in which the gods had to be appeased by offering them some special gift, such as a child or an animal.
9. The resurrection of Jesus did not involve the resuscitation of a corpse. Jesus did not rise from the dead, except perhaps in some metaphorical sense.
10. The expectation that Jesus will return and sit in cosmic judgment is part and parcel of the mythological worldview that is now defunct.

God's Domain according to Jesus

Points 11-18 Show Funk’s cafeteria approach to Christian doctrines, much of it true, some of it over reaching, and much of it his personal views. No Church preaches all of these as their own doctrines.

The canon

19. The New Testament is a highly uneven and biased record of orthodox attempts to invent Christianity.
The canon of scripture adopted by traditional Christianity should be contracted and expanded simultaneously to reflect respect for the old tradition and openness to the new. Only the works of strong poets—those who startle us, amaze us with a glimpse of what lies beyond the rim of present sight—should be considered for inclusion. The canon should be a collection of scriptures without a fixed text and without either inside or outside limits, like the myth of King Arthur and the knights of the roundtable or the myth of the American West.
20. The Bible does not contain fixed, objective standards of behavior that should govern human behavior for all time. This includes the ten commandments as well as the admonitions of Jesus.

The language of faith

21. In rearticulating the vision of Jesus, we should take care to express ourselves in the same register as he employed in his parables and aphorisms—paradox, hyperbole, exaggeration, and metaphor. Further, our reconstructions of his vision should be provisional, always subject to modification and correction.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Which of these clearly stated biases do you personally disagree with rodahi?

Thank you for providing what Ish had not, i.e., Robert Funk's views. Now, would you provide, for Ish, evidence demonstrating the Scholars Version is biased? Further, provide, for Ish, evidence that I reflect Funk's bias.

rodahi

Unfortunately, most of the Jesus Seminar scholars are publicity hungry. They are not content to wait for the general public to study the texts of the New Testament on their own but must shove the scholarly tradition in our faces. Their insitance on "biblical literacy" by using modern secular marketing techniques is a bit fast and too focused for most of the non-academic public.

You missed my question rodahi. Could you answer it please?

Thank you,

Nomad

I do not own the "Scholar Version Bible", so I will let Ish speak for himself there. As for Funk's biases reflecting your own, I asked you specifically if you disagree with anything on the list. From what I know of you and your views, you agree with virtually everything on the list. If I am mistaken, and you do, in fact, disagree with Funk on any of his points, I would be interested in hearing about them, and why you hold a different view.

Thank you again,

Nomad

My favorite member of the Jesus Seminar was Charles Verhoven. Every such group should have a movie producer. Especially one with who have developed such in depth works as Showgirls.

If you'll look back up to my second post, I presented two brief snippets from Funk. I thought that would suffice considering that his views are pretty well known and easy to find on the web.

Now Rodahi's trying to be cute... Cool...

First, I provided evidence on other threads. I talked to their controversial choice of words (e.g. "damn" for "woe"). I also carried on a drawn-out conversation with you about their choice of poorly supported textual variants.

Second, would you tell me exactly how else I am supposted to demonstrate that the Scholar's Version is biased? I'm assuming you want me to go verse-by-verse through the whole work? Doing so would still be a ridiculous request even if I knew all the exact variants they chose to use for their English text. However, I can't do that because (as far as I know) they have no such critical version of the Greek text that explicitly marks the the textual variants they chose to use for their translation.

Finally, I may have made the claim that the "Scholar's Version" is biased, however, you have made the claim (several times I might add) that most (if not all) of the other versions are biased. If I must go verse-by-verse through the one translation that disagrees with most of the others, then I think it only fair that you go verse-by-verse through all the other translations you have labeled biased and prove it. Fair?

I think Nomad covered this. Your views seem to line up pretty well with Funk's.

Ish

ROFL, Exactly!

I think his name is Paul though.

Check it out! Paul Verhoeven made some pretty interesting movies.

Why exactly is he one of the Jesus Seminar "scholars" again?

Ish

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited June 22, 2001).]

Thank you for your opinion.

rodahi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Nomad: Just so that I am clear on this point, are you saying that the school within which one is educated will have no bearing on the prejudices of the students produced by that school?

rodahi: Let's see, Nomad. Is it possible for a person to ATTEMPT to find out what happened in history with as little bias as is humanly possible? I say the answer is "yes."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: You missed my question rodahi. Could you answer it please?

I didn't miss anything. See above.

rodahi

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:

Nomad: From The Coming Radical Reformation Twenty-one Theses by Robert W. Funk

{Snip}

Which of these clearly stated biases do you personally disagree with rodahi?[/b]

rodahi: Thank you for providing what Ish had not, i.e., Robert Funk's views. Now, would you provide, for Ish, evidence demonstrating the Scholars Version is biased? Further, provide, for Ish, evidence that I reflect Funk's bias.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: I do not own the "Scholar Version Bible", so I will let Ish speak for himself there.

Thanks.

Nomad: As for Funk's biases reflecting your own, I asked you specifically if you disagree with anything on the list. From what I know of you and your views, you agree with virtually everything on the list.

Where did you demonstrate that Robert Funk has biases? Are you saying that anything he says that you disagree with is a bias?

Nomad: If I am mistaken, and you do, in fact, disagree with Funk on any of his points, I would be interested in hearing about them, and why you hold a different view.

I disagree with Robert Funk, John Dominic Crossan, and others with respect to what "type" the Jesus of history probably was. I think the available evidence suggests that he was the apocalyptic prophet/magician type. Robert Funk, John Dominic Crossan, and some of the other members of the Seminar think Jesus was an a Jewish wandering teacher type.

rodahi