Against John's Gospel, against A Course in Miracles: More on ACIM and the liberal methodology of the Historical Jesus

Defenders of A Course in Miracles (ACIM) often stress the scholarly difference between the Synoptics and John in order to justify the prima facie reliability of the view that ACIM's Jesus is the same historical Jesus. 

I think that, if consistently worked out, such view is self-defeating for proponents of ACIM, since the methodological criteria used  by liberal scholars to distrust John's Gospel ALSO applies to ACIM. 

Such methodology cut both ways, and the skeptical conclusions derived from the liberal methodology that applies to John will apply (even with more power) to ACIM.

The second thing I want to stress is that the agreement of some ACIM's proponents and the liberal trends of the historical Jesus is ideological, not methodological (i.e. it is an agreement not based on the consistent application of the liberal scholarly methodology, but in a a priori  sympathetic view of the liberal conclusions).

Proponents of ACIM more or less agree with liberals about the portrait of Jesus, and from there they conclude that ACIM, being in more or less agreement with such "scholarly" portrait, is at least for that extension evidence that ACIM's Jesus it is the same historical Jesus studied by scholars.

This approach is amanzingly superficial and, in my opinion, unworthy of serious investigators. 

The simple agreement or coherence between two propositions don't imply that both are reliable, specially if the methodology used to arrive to one proposition destroys the other proposition.

Suppose that a skeptical materialist argues, on the basis of the neurophysiological evidence for materialism, that reincarnation cannot exist. It would stupid for a Spiritualist to support his denial of reincarnation on the basis of such conclusions reached by the skeptical materialist. Even though they could both agree on the conclusion that reincarnation doesn't happen, the methodology used by the materialist also destroys spiritualism.

This is a egregious case of methodological INCONSISTENCY and exposes that the whole sympathy of the imaginary spiritualist with the imaginary materialist is purely ideological and strategical, not methodological.

Reject the materialist's methodology, and the spiritualist cannot deny reincarnation anymore on that basis (he would have to appeal to other, materialism-independent, basis in order to keep his denial, for example, arguing the lack of evidence for reincarnation in most mediums, the conflicting opinions of mediums regarding reincarnation and so forth).

In the case of the historical Jesus, what determines a given portrayal of Jesus is the methodology being employed by scholars.

For example, if you assume that miracles are impossible, then any Gospels account of miracles will be seen as legends or myths. This will determine a portrayal of Jesus which is miracle-free and purely naturalistic. (Note that if Jesus really performed miracles, the naturalistic accounts won't include this aspect of his life as historical, and hence will be incomplete).

But on a different methodology, for example one which is theistic or at least agnostic, won't rule out in advance the happening of miracles. Therefore, if the Jesus' ministry included the factual occurence of miracles, this methodology will favour the recognition of such events and hence a more accurate picture of the real Jesus.

For the reasons mentioned above, the mere agreement or cohrence of a given source (e.g. ACIM) with a given portrayal of Jesus (e.g. the Jesus of the Jesus Seminar) is insufficient to warrant the conclusion that ACIM is reliable, especially when the methodology used by the Seminar to reconstruct Jesus also destroys the credibility of ACIM (as I've argued here, which proves in passing that such "agreement" is, largely illusory).

Consistency demands that the ACIM proponent either rejects such methodology (on behalf of preserving the reliability of ACIM) in whose case the Seminar's portrayal of Jesus becomes unwarranted, or either rejects ACIM. This dilemma tends to trap the proponent of ACIM and he hardly he will can escape from this (except with double standards, wishful thinking, ad hoc speculations, etc.).

  

Against John, against ACIM

Let's explore more specifically why the methodology and assumptions which liberals suggest to distrust John's Gospel also affects ACIM (I'm leaving aside, for the moment, the underlaying naturalistic assumption which pervades liberal scholarpship: such assumption is key and crucial to understand the liberals' denialism of the resurrection, but ACIM is entirely based on the assumption that Jesus was risen from the death. Hence, the liberals' naturalism makes whole of ACIM a non-starter) :

1)John's Gospel is the LAST one to be written (around 100 AD). Therefore (so argue liberals) the differences between John and the Synoptics can be accounted by a process of legendary development of the Christian theology developed decades after Jesus died, which falsifies, or tend to falsify, the true person, teaching and message of Jesus.

But then that could us say, consitently with the above "possibility of theological development which falsifies the truth", of ACIM which was written in the 20th century?

Specially, in the light of passages (clearly coloured by later and advanced Christian-theological terminology) in ACIM attributed to Jesus like this:

The Son of God is part of the Holy Trinity, but the Trinity Itself is One. There is no confusion within Its Levels, because They are of one Mind and one Will.  This single purpose creates perfect integration and establishes the peace of God

The expression "Holy Trinity" doesn't appear anywhere in John nor in the other Gospels. Such expression was a development of later Christian theologians centuries after Jesus' death.

But then, why the hell such expression appear in the lips of ACIM's "real" Jesus? 

Any honest inquirer who accepts ACIM would ask: Would liberal scholars accept such "Holy Trinity" expression, if it were appeared in John? Probably not, but then... why should us accept it when it appears, 19 centuries after John, in ACIM? Why exactly?.

Clearly, a double standard is used here to evaluate the John's Gospel and ACIM. If consistency were used, then it becomes obvious that methodology which affects the credibility of John will affect, more forcelly,  ACIM too.

2)Liberals deny that Jesus used expressions mentioned in John like "I'm the light of the world" and so forth.

But some of such expressions appear in ACIM. A whole section of it is entitled "I'm the light of the world".

Note that liberals deny the historicity of such sayings (not its theological meaning, which is not a historical question addressed by historians). But if the ACIM's Jesus is the same historical Jesus and such ACIM's Jesus uttered such expression, then (whatever is its actual meaning), the liberal conclusion is false. It would be a historical fact that Jesus uttered such a thing.

Hence, the proponent of ACIM, having realized that the liberal conclusion in that case is false, cannot anymore deny such expression in John (in fact, ACIM would provide multiple attestation of such utterance in John), and the whole question to be dicsussed will be the interpretation of such utterance (not its historicity = its actual utterance by Jesus himself).

Again, for truth-seekers outhere: how could a proponent of ACIM to agree with a liberal methodology which denies such utterances, when the same expression appear in ACIM (19 centuries after Jesus' death!)?

Why the speculations of "theological development" are sympathetically accepted when employed against John, but are suddenly omitted or undermined when assesing ACIM, which is extremely later (and hence much more susceptible to such objection of "later developments") than John?. Why exactly?

This shows that the proponent of ACIM is not interested in methodological consistency. He's interested in reaching a portrait of Jesus which is ideologically palatable.

3)The proponent of ACIM will agree with the view that John's Jesus doesn't talk in parables and tend to use long discourses, while the Synoptics' Jesus does, and will conclude from this that John is unreliable because it is very different than the Jesus of the earliest sources.

But does the ACIM's Jesus talk in parables? Certainly not. 

On the contrary, the ACIM's Jesus talks in a very straight forward manner and even clarifies a bunch of Christian expressions. The ACIM's Jesus enjoys providing LONG discourses and explanations about a given topic and offering psychoterapy.

Consider this teaching of the ACIM's Jesus:

 The Last Judgment is one of the most threatening ideas in your thinking.  This is because you do not understand it.  Judgment is not an attribute of God.  

It was brought into being only after the separation, when it became one of the many learning devices to be built into the overall plan.  Just as the separation occurred over millions of years, the Last Judgment will extend over a similarly long period, and perhaps an even longer one.  Its length can, however, be greatly shortened by miracles, the device for shortening but not abolishing time.  If a sufficient number become truly miracle-minded, this shortening process can be virtually immeasurable.  

It is essential, however, that you free yourself from fear quickly, because you must emerge from the conflict if you are to bring peace to other minds.  The Last Judgment is generally thought of as a procedure undertaken by God.  Actually it will be undertaken by my brothers with my help.  It is a final healing rather than a meting out of punishment, however much you may think that punishment is deserved.  Punishment is a concept totally opposed to right-mindedness, and the aim of the Last Judgment is to restore right-mindedness to you.  The Last Judgment might be called a process of right evaluation.  It simply means that everyone will finally come to understand what is worthy and what is not. 

There are no parables in such teaching. Note also how long is it (and I've just copied a part of the whole section about it).

In formal terms (no parables + long discourse) the above teaching seems to be more like John than the Synoptics. 

Therefore, consistency demands that the unreliability attributed to John on such basis applies to ACIM too.

But it is not important to the proponent of ACIM. He will agree with the liberal veredict on John, will castigate Christians for ignoring such differences between John and the Synoptics established by "scholaprship", and at the same time will take a cup of  coffee while reading and agreeing with the LONG explanations of ACIM's Jesus which are parables-free and provides straightforward information about a bunch of topics like the Holy Trinity, the Son of God and the Last Judgment.

This is possible only in America...

4)The proponent of ACIM sometimes argues the Synoptics say little about Jesus himself. His main focus is on the kingdom of God. On the contrary, in John, the main focus is in Jesus himself, not on the kingdom of God.

If that claim is understood as a claim that John stresses different aspects of Jesus in a more explicit way, then I agree. John makes explicit what, mostly, is implicit in the Synoptics.

But if such claim is understood as a claim implying that what John says is INCOMPATIBLE with the Synoptics' Jesus, then I disagree. As far I know, nothing in John's Jesus seems to be incompatible with the what's already present in the Synoptics.

Consider this saying in John 14: 1-8 (which seem to bother liberals too much):

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. ⁷ If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.

Liberals will smile and condescendently dismiss the historicity of such expression like "I'm the way, the truth and the life". (We may suppose that ACIM's proponents, while applauding and enjoying the liberal denialism  and debunking of such expressions, will take another cup of hot coffee, sit with the legs crossed in a comfortable chair, while reading and wholly agreeing with the section in ACIM in which Jesus affirms  "I'm the light of the world" or "the Son of God is part of the Holy Trinity", and be very astonished to discover that the Jesus of ACIM is amazingly compatible with liberal conclusions...).

But let that pass. Consider the expression "No one comes to the Father except through me".

A now, compare with this saying in Q (Matthew 11.27/Luke 10:22):

All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him

Is not Jesus saying in Q basically the same than in John? Is not Jesus saying that he's the unique and special intermediary between God and men?. Is not John providing a multiple attestation (with  different words) of Jesus' exclusivistic view in Q?.

The proponent of ACIM will say that most of the sayings of Jesus are about God' kingdom and not about his person.

But this is irrelevant. You don't undermine the importance of Jesus' identity by the number of times which he referred to himself (the importance is determined by who he THOUGHT he was). Even if just ONE time he said or implied to be divine, it suffices to prove that Jesus' self-perception was divine, even if one million times he talked about other things beside himself.

The above saying of Jesus in Q in which he regards himself as God's Son in a unique and exclusivistic sense is a dagger in the heart of much of liberal scholarship, even if it were the only saying of Jesus' divine status (and certainly, this is not the only one).

Trying to undermine the importance of such utterance about Jesus' divine self-perception appealing to other, most common and numerous, teachings about God's kingdom, is like undermining NDE as evidence for survival arguing for the thousand of NDE cases which have a purely psycho-physiological explanations.

One single case of a veridical NDE would be extremely more important (for the survival question), than one million of cases of delusional NDEs. The latter doesn't refute the single case which proves survival. And that single case is a LOT more important than the millions of delusional NDEs, since such single case is what proves survival, destroys materialism, etc. (note all the implications of that single fact).

Likewise, the hundred of times which Jesus referred to God's Kingdom or other questions don't refute the few authentic cases (even if it were just ONE) in which he regarded himself as divine in some sense. If one single tradition about Jesus' divine self-perception is historical, this suffices to make the point that he regarded himself as divine. And is it is the case, are wrong the disciples when they focus their attention in the only Son of God which comes to Earth, directly sent by God? What would you do if you become convinced, on the basis of the evidence and your personal experience, that God himself (or his "only and unique" Son who claims to have divine authority on Earth) is a friend of you? Would you treat him as a mere mortal who shares interesting New Age insights and aphorisms? It would be ridiculous!.

To treat God (or His representative) like that is what an committed atheist with an axe to grind against God would do. But not rational person would treat God, or His ultimate representative on Earth, as a another guru or prophet or spiritual teacher. This would be a serious misunderstanding of the trascendental spiritual importance of the person that we have in front, specially when such person is claiming that his is the ONLY intermediary between God and men.

(Note that here we're not assuming that Jesus is really God or the Son of God. Here we're just discussing what Jesus claimed and did and hence what the disciples believed on the basis of their experiences with Jesus).

As I've argued, we have good historical evidence that Jesus' self-perception was divine and exclusivistic. In the case of Q mentioned above, Jesus' divine Sonship and prerrogative to reveal God is asserted by himself as a CONDITION for entering God's kingdom, so the liberal emphasis in God's kingdom regardless of Jesus' person is an egregious (religious pluralistic and atheistic) misrepresentation of what Jesus is teaching, namely that, only through him (the people that Jesus chooses) will be saved.

We have shown briefly Jesus' divine and exclusivistic self-perception in Q. 

But in the Synoptics, we find more sayings of divinity, for example:

In the Synoptics, we find Jesus' self-attribution of divine prerrogatives, like forgiving sins, for example in Mark 2: 10-11:

But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— ¹¹ “I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home.

In the Synoptics, we find Jesus changing, on his own authority, the laws given by God in the Old Testament. For example in Mark 2: 27-28:

The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; ²⁸ so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath

Not human being has the authority to change the laws what God has imposed. (It is not surprising that the Jews, correctly, understood such Jesus' claims as blasphemous, since Jesus was putting himself in the same level than God, assuming God's prerrogatoves and even changing what God has decided, a fact which explains perfectly why he was crucified by the Romans under the Jewish instigation). The portrayal of the Jesus Seminar of a Jesus who is a passive, mere teller of stories is simply an egregious misrepresentation of the historical evidence on behalf of an ideological, naturalistic agenda and cannot explain well why such supposedly passive, nice story-teller, not threatening person would receive such severe punishment as the crucifixion.

In Mark 10:45, we read:

For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.

So, it is not surprising that younger New Testament scholars, including some liberals like agnostic James Crossley (an expert in Mark's Gospel. Crossley dates it in the end of 30s, mid 40s AD), have written:

Famous terms for Jesus such as "son of Man" or "Son of God" really were being used by or of Jesus when he was alive. Jesus did really practised healing and exorcism; and Jesus really did predict his imminent death and probably thought it had some atoning function." (How did Christianity begin? p.1)

We could discuss the theological interpretation of such expressions and titles like the "Son of God". But on historical grounds, the evidence clearly points out to the conclusion that such titles were used during the life of Jesus, and not were later developments.

In John we find more explicit expressions of Jesus' divinity. But nothing in John's Jesus is incompatible with what is implicit and explicit in the Synoptics and in Q.

Conclusion

As I've mentioned, I've become very dissapointed about this matter. Specially, in the paranormal community, there seems to exist a willing and studied ignorance of the historical Jesus studies.

You argue for the authenticity of a given Jesus' tradition which supports the Christian view, and they'll think you're arguing for Christian theology (they conflate Christian theology with Historical Jesus research).

For example, you argue that the historical evidence shows that Jesus' self-perception was exclusivistic, they will think you're arguing for the theological doctrines of Trinitarianism, biblical infallibility or the Virgin's Birth.

You argue that they evidence for the resurrection is good, they will think you're a fundamentalist who holds to flat Earth theory, and takes the Bible on faith.

You argue that liberals have naturalistic prejudices which cause skepticism regarding some Jesus' deeds and that they misuse the criteria of authenticity in order to reach anti-Christian conclusions, they will think you're accepting uncritically the conservative scholars' work or the Bible on face value.

I haven't seen such irrationalism, willing unability to proper understanding, unsympathetic reading, ignorance and anti-intellectualism even among "skeptics" of the paranormal.

More shocking to me was to discover that there are people who accepts ACIM (or the Urantia Book and other new age sources) and simultaneously agree with the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar, not realizing that the naturalistic and skeptical methodology of the Seminar which produced such idiosyncratic conclusions about Jesus is a methodology which also destroys ACIM.

Such level of intellectual blindness and self-deception is just astonishing.

 

It's very frustrating, exasperating and dissapointing.

I haven't seen such level of superficiality, subjectivism and emotionalism in any other field that I've studied.

It is simply hard to believe.