This Jesus Seminar’s view of Jesus is by far one of the most ridiculous challenges to the Christian faith. It seems even silly to call it a challenge, but nonetheless, it is what it is. Therefore, as Christians, we should be well prepared to ‘hold our own’ in conversations that speak of this “Jesus of faith” as opposed to the Jesus of history.
The Jesus Seminar is a group of scholars whose purpose is solely to distinguish a difference between the Jesus of faith and the Jesus of history. As it does seem odd to think of a difference in the two (faith and history), this isolated group of scholars has initiated an advance to prove away any such aspect that marries the two: Jesus of faith and Jesus of history. Allow me to paint a picture of what this looks like.
When the group of scholars came together to create such a controversy of the Biblical account of Jesus, they say that they “want a Jesus who’s relevant for today” (Strobel, case for Christ 153).
{Please understand that the issue of relevance is an entire different subject and will not be fully discussed here}
They consider the historical Jesus to be an irrelevant voice in today’s society because “the traditional Jesus did not speak to the needs of the ecological crisis, the nuclear crisis, the feminist crisis,” and so they concur to “need a new picture of Jesus” (Strobel, Christ 153).
They create assumptions and assert them to the public ear that is highly offensive to some and clearly misleading. Such an assertion is as follows: “The religious establishment has not allowed the intelligence of high scholarship to pass through pastors and priests to a hungry laity, and the radio and TV counterparts of educated clergy have traded in platitudes and pieties and played on the ignorance of the uninformed. A rude and rancorous awakening lies ahead” (westarinstitute.com).
What is it, really, that the one behind this statement is trying to get across? It seems as though they are speaking to the uneducated themselves. As they say they are speaking for the educated (scholars), they are sneakily inserting messages like this that automatically assume leadership in the Church to be unintelligent! This, to me, does not sound like such a scholarly thing to say. The scholar would easily point out this mistake. No, it sounds more ignorant than anything, if not blatantly lying. Just because it comes from a “scholar” does not necessarily mean it’s true. One should be careful to trust words like this especially coming from a “scholar” whose purpose is to create an entirely different assessment of truth than what is common and what naturally follows logically.
For instance, the Jesus Seminar will disqualify any of Jesus’ sayings if they fall under any of these, among other, criteria points by which they have created. Remember, the Jesus Seminar created this criteria themselves, it is not something that is evaluated from any Biblical scholars outside their camp of thinking, let alone classic rationale:
1. Self-Reference. If anything Jesus said referred to himself, they considered it to be unauthentic.
2. Community Issues. If Jesus said anything that was applicable to the community of the Church, it is considered unauthentic.
3. Theological Agenda. If Jesus said anything that supported his position, agenda, or any other purposes the Bible claims his purpose to be, it is considered unauthentic.
If anything recorded in the New Testament of the canonical Bible has a description of Jesus’ sayings in any regard to the above, it was dismissed and considered unauthentic. But let us investigate these audacious claims.
Point 1: Self-Reference.
Since when do consider literature unauthentic if it records someone making claims about themselves? If we applied this point of criticism to other historical accounts, we would have very little to know about our own history as a nation, yes, even as a people. What about biographies and auto-biographies?
Point 2: Community Issues.
This seems to be a bit absurd. After all, if someone has a goal in mind, would they not speak directly to the intention of that goal and to the people whom their goal is aimed at being accomplished through?
Point 3: Theological Agenda. This is, quite possibly, the most ridiculous criteria of them all. Obviously, the Bible has a theological agenda. If we can agree on one agenda in particular, is that it points toward the Messiah, namely, Jesus of Nazareth. Of course it will have a theological agenda! Therefore, if Jesus said or did something that would point to his identity as Messiah, it would be normal for someone to record it. Might I add here a classical “Duh”?
If we turn the tables and use this particular criterion on the Jesus Seminar itself, then we could dismiss nearly everything they say and write, for it points to their agenda of liberating people (westarinstitute.com) from the historical, Biblical accounts of Jesus. Indeed, if we were to apply these criteria to our own lives and how we as a people have learned from anything in history, we would end up with quite a small collection of historical documents. Quite so, we would have no clue of our ancestral descent and how we came to be who and where we are. Remember, all this comes from a group of “scholars”, so to speak.
It seems apparent that this group of people has an agenda as well; that is, to eliminate the historical New Testament. Why, one would have to ask, would someone do this? Among all other historical texts, why does the Jesus Seminar attack the Bible? Maybe because it holds people accountable to someone other than their selves. Maybe because the very people who are attacking it don’t have an understanding of the message it carries. If they would only open their eyes to see, that while they are laboring to “spell liberty” (westarinstitute.com) for millions, they are blind to the liberation that can be received from the lover of their souls. Yes, even the salvation of it.
 300x250.jpg)
I went to the website you posted for the Jesus Seminar and the article I read was a sermon one of their members had written when invited to speak in a church. It’s crazy that people who don’t even believe in the deity of Jesus are being asked to speak in American churches.
I know… it’s sad that churches are ill informed and are turning very liberal.
The Church in America is becoming very liberal. Very afraid to cause conflict. And Truth is at stake. It seems like churches are selling their souls to keep people in the doors. We’re afraid to stand up for what is True and Right and Holy to keep from hurting man’s pride. Paul said that we have to “test and approve” everything that we see, read, hear, say, etc. And the result of all this is that souls are being lost and God is not glorified as He should be through Christ. We (I) need to pray.
You know, Nick, you’re right.
You know the Acts chapter 2 event, right? Where the Spirit fell on the apostles and they spoke in many tongues/languages. Well, I think one of the main reasons this was done is so that God could “speak to other in a language they could understand”. It was for their ability to hear the word. I think it is very important for us – the Church – to speak in a language that the world can understand. To an extent, this means that we use modern methods, and in some cases, postmodern methods. However, the message CANNOT change. And that’s what I think happens when we have churches wanting to invite other race groups and peoples into the church, they change the way the message is given, and the outcome of the message changes.. very bad outcome.
The church SHOULD seek to unite in cross-culture settings, BUT, it should not change the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The cross will always be offensive, that’s just something we will have to deal with.
I have many thoughts about this, maybe I’ll do a post on it.
I think it is
The American Church has been moving away from clear, expositional, Biblical teaching to a more situation/emotion based form of what I like to call “Hippie Jesus” sermons. I mean, let’s face it, the Bible is offensive… it even offends Christians. Look at Romans 9. We’d rather have our egos stroked by a good message about how Jesus loves everyone just the way they are. We’ve become soft-skinned Christians who can’t take criticism and we’ve become mentally flabby because we don’t have to exercise our minds and, in general, are not encouraged to do so. We don’t like feeling judged. We throw the verse out “Judge not lest ye be judged” not realizing that Jesus was commanding believers not to judge non-believers. He said, “first take the log out of your own eye so that you will be able to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” Jesus tells believers to examine ourselves first, THEN we will be able to examine others. There’s no examining going on. Pastors aren’t being held accountable to what they teach and they aren’t having anyone test what they speak before it’s spoken and none in the congregation are being examined. Wow, long rant there. I’ll stop now and save it for the post you do on the topic. Sorry.
No worries, Nick. Nick, I can see your passion on this topic. There are very valid reasons for this concern. You are correct when you say, “we’ve become mentally flabby because we don’t have to exercise our minds and, in general, are not encouraged to do so…”
One of my thoughts on this topic is the numbness of the mind. Here, Nick, you rightfully pointed that out. It must be a great challenge to teach the Biblical truths and keep the interest of the audience. However, that doesn’t mean we should neglect sound doctrine. Mark Driscol comes to mind. I have heard some of his teaching, and from what I’ve heard so far, it’s great.
I would love to hear more of your thoughts on this.
I’ve been reading through Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Christ” and in it he interviews Dr. Greg Boyd who, more or less, tears apart the Jesus Seminar. The Jesus Seminar represents an incredibly small number of “scholars” who rely heavily on the documents: The Gospel of Thomas, Secret Mark, the Cross Gospel, and Q to support their theories. The Gospel of Thomas was “significantly influenced by Gnosticism, which was a religious movement in the second, third, and fourth centuries.” Because of this, the majority of scholars date the “gospel” to the mid second century at the earliest. Secret Mark is supposed to be an “uncensored version of the Gospel of Mark…used to claim that Jesus was a magician or that a number of early Christians practiced homosexuality.” The problem with this is that the book doesn’t exist and was only mentioned in a quote by Clement of Alexandria in the late second century. And this quote has somehow disappeard. In Strobel’s book Dr. Greg Boyd sums up Secret Mark like this: “So Secret Mark is a nonexistent work cited by a now nonexistent text by a late second-century writer who’s known for being naive about these things. The vast majority of scholars don’t give this any credibility.” (Strobel, 123). Strobel also reports on other scholars who disagree with the Jesus Seminar, one in particular Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson, stating, “Johnson systematically skewers the Jesus Seminar, saying it ‘by no means represents the cream of New Testament scholarship,’it follows a process that is ‘biased against the authenticity of the gospel traditions,’ and its results were ‘already determined ahead of time.’ He concludes, ‘this is not responsible, or even critical, scholarship. It is a self-indulgent charade.’” (Strobel, 127). If anyone has questions about the validity of the Jesus Seminar, Strobel’s book is a good place to start as he interviews notable leaders in New Testament scholarship and notes other works that one can go to.