John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg on God and the definition of Resurrection. Sophistry in New Testament studies

 A careful reading of the books and papers of the leading members of the Jesus Seminar about the Historical Jesus reveals something curious. They present themselves as the voice of mainstream modern scholarship regarding the historical Jesus. They explicitly or implicitly say or imply that their conclusions about the Historical Jesus are accepted by most New Testament, historians and Jesus scholars.

When I began to study the topic of the historical Jesus, I accepted at face value the claim of the Jesus Seminar of being representative of mainstream scholarship. But currently, after an intensive study many books, texts and lectures of the Jesus Seminar and other scholars outside this group (inclusing liberal, jews, conservatives, etc.), I'm very skeptical of this claim.

For several reasons, I don't believe anymore that the Jesus Seminar's view on the Historical Jesus is representative of what most Jesus scholars think. In fact, I now think their view on Jesus is minoritary among contemporary Jesus scholars, and I think good evidence for this conclusion could be provided.

My personal project of research is currently to document exactly what most scholars think about the historical Jesus and publish this results, not because the majority is right, but because the "majority of scholars" argument is very common among New Testament scholars, and we need to get some order here. I'm tired to hear "most scholars think that" or "I don't think most scholars say that" among New Testament scholars (of all theological persuasions, not just the radical extremists, atheists and religious pluralists of the Jesus Seminar).

I'll publish the result of this research, probably, at the end of this year or in 2013, if time allows it.

Let's to return to the main topic of this post.

For "resurrection", everybody understands the coming to life of a dead person in the same body (in the case of Christianity, in the resurrection, the person comes to life in the same body which is transformed to make it compatible with an spiritual, eternal life).

However, when you read the works of the Jesus Seminar's members John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg, you'll realize that they change the concept of resurrection in order to :

1)Affirm Jesus' Resurrection (and misleadingly and dishonestly portrait themselves as "christians")

2)Deny Chrisitian exclusivism (on behalf of religious pluralism)

3)Make such idiosyncratic version of Christianity compatible with contemporary atheistic naturalism.

Consider John Dominic Crossan's misleading concept of resurrection. For him, the resurrection is "the continuing presence in a continuing community of the past Jesus in a radically new and trascendental mode of present and future existence" (The Historical Jesus, p. 404).

Note that in Crossan's view, the resurrection has nothing to do with Jesus' coming to life again in his own body, but with a given community's experience of Jesus' presence. Crossan's idiosyncratic definition of resurrection could be accepted even by hard-core metaphysical naturalists and materialistic atheists. (The latter could accept that a given community of religious believers experienced Jesus' presence; they only would add the important qualification that such experience is purely subjective and delusional).

Consider Marcus Borg's conclusion about the resurrection: "For me, the truth of Easter is very simple: the followers of Jesus, both then and now, continue to experience Jesus as a living reality after his death. The post-Easter Jesus is a experiential reality" (Borg's contribution to the book Will the Real Jesus Pleas Stand Up?, p. 124)

Such view on the resurrection doesn't clarify if such an "experiential reality" is veridical, or delusional, namely: Did they experience Jesus because Jesus ACTUALLY was risen from the death, or was their experience just a psychological phenomena projected upon the reality? The latter is what atheists, religious pluralists and other anti-Christians believe, but Crossan/Borg's view of the resurrection is ambiguous enough as to make it palatable for secularists and religious pluralists of every strip.

Marcus Borg, who is a explicit religious pluaralist (see evidence in this post about the origins of Borg's pluralism), openly says "As a Christian, I'm a layperson, an Episcopalian, nonliteralistic and nonexclusivistic" (ibid., p.117).

In general, a consistent "nonexclusivism" (i.e. religious pluralism) as an approach to the Historical Jesus implies the rejection of Jesus' putative claims of religious exclusivity (e.g. Jesus as the exclusive "Son of God", or as someone who stood or spoke with divine authority in matters which belong only to God, which are seen by pluralists as unhistorical and pure fictional creations of the early Church) and, specifically, a rejection literal bodily resurrection (which is seen as something which privileges Christianity over other religions).

For example, regarding the possibility of Jesus' literal bodily resurrection, Crossan correctly concede: "requires a 'supernatural interventionist' understanding of the way God relates to the world". (The Last Week, p.218-219 n18. Emphasis in blue added).

But Crossan (who is an atheist masked as a Christian, see evidence here) doesn't believe in God, and hence he doesn't believe in any supernatural intervention, and hence he rejects Jesus' possibility of bodily resurrection.

In the case of Borg, he thinks that supernaturalistic intervention of God is problematic because "it tends to privilege Christianity" (Will the real Jesus please stand Up? p.127) and this cannot be accepted by a pluralist like Borg, who adds: "I simply do not believe that God is known primarily or only in our tradition" (ibid. p. 128).

Again, it is Borg's pluralism which makes him to read the evidence about the historical Jesus in a way consistent with such pluralism (and against exclusivism, including the resurrection, which if caused by God, is seen by Borg as something which privileges Christianity).

But Borg's pluralistic prejudices are faced with a massive problem: there are good historical reasons to think that Jesus' teachings regarding God's Kingdom were exclusivistic, not pluralistic.

Consider Matthew 11.27: "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"

There is good reason to think this saying is historical: According to the principle of dissimilarity (a criterion used by Jesus scholars to determine if a given saying is authentic), this saying is likely to be authentic because it says that the Son is unknowable by any person other than God ("no one knows the Son except the Father") but the early Church taught that Jesus was knowable (so the early Church view on the knowledge about Jesus was dissimilar to what the saying explicitly say). So, it is unlikely the saying was an invention of the early Church.

What is important and crucial to destroy Borg's pluralism is the second part of the saying ("no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him"). This clearly shows that, contrary to Borg's prejudices, the "Father" (=God) is not known in several religions or traditions, but only in ONE: The one linked to "The Son" (=Jesus).

So, contrary to Borg and other religious pluralists and atheists in the Jesus Seminar, there are reasons to think that Jesus' self-understanding was exclusivistic, not pluralistic. Jesus saw himself as someone who knows God in a way and to a degree that others "spiritual teachers" cannot know Him, and importantly, he sees Himself as the unique mediator of that knowledge to other human beings.

That the knowledge of God only is possible through "the Son" and that "no one knows the Father" is incompatible with Borg's pluralistic opinion "I simply do not believe that God is known primarily or only in our tradition"

Borg's opinion is purely autobiographical, not something rooted in the evidence.

The watered down version of Jesus defended by Crossan and Borg, as a mere cynic philosopher, a "teller of stories", a teacher whose only purpose was to change other people's perceptions, is unlikely to be true given the historical evidence about Jesus (and specially, given Jesus' resurrection, if the latter actually occurred).

In order to deny the historicity of this saying (and others about the historical Jesus implying exclusivity), some members of the Jesus Seminar are forced to misuse the criteria of authenticity (e.g. some of them use the criteria as necessary, not as sufficient, conditions to determine historicity, a very important methodological point which I'll discuss and document in detail in future posts), or simply to muddle the waters speculating about metaphors, meanings, and so forth (all of these evasive methods can be easily refuted).

A further example of misleading argumentation and sophistry by Borg:

Borg has written "Easter has one further dimension of meaning that I wish to underline. Easter is God's yes to Jesus... In my view, God's yes to Jesus does not mean the confirmation of the doctrinal claims made by Jesus, but God's affirmation of what Jesus was doing in a comprehensive sense: his teaching about the Way, his challenge about the domination system, and the alternative religious and social vision embodied in his willingness to partake of a meal with someone who wished" (Will the real Jesus Please Stand Up?, p. 125)

My goodness, what a watered down view of Jesus by a self-proclaimed "Christian". It's shocking.

Let's to analyze Borg's arguments:

1-For Borg, the Easter wasn't an experience caused by an external, objective (mind-independent) event like Jesus' actual bodiliy resurrection, but a subjective experience of the community who believed in him. Now, if it is the case, how the hell does Borg knows that such (subjective) experience was God's YES to Jesus' overall approach?

2-Elsewere, Borg has written about his personal concept of God like this: "God is ineffable . . . . God is beyond all images, physical and mental . . . . All our thinking about God . . . are attempts to express the ineffable. The ineffable is beyond all our concepts, even this one" (The God We Never Knew pp. 48-9)

In English, "ineffable" means incapable of being expressed in words. Note that for Borg, whatever thinking you have about God is ineffable. But if it is the case, how the hell can he express that the Easter mean God's "YES" to Jesus' teaching?

Since that thinking and writing that God gave a "YES" (a kind of "You're doing right Jesus, keep the good work, buddy") to Jesus through the (subjective experiences of the believers) of the resurrection, implies thinking and writing about God, then Borg's words used in these thoughts and texts is a literal demolition of Borg's own belief in the ineffability of the thinking about God.

If ineffable, Borg's words are meaningless and cannot be true. If true, they have meaning (as in fact they do) and are not ineffable, hence his "ineffability position about God" is false.

Borg's position is literally self-refuting.

3-Borg says that the "divine YES" is affirmative of Jesus' teaching about the Way. But Borg says that the resurrection is not a validation of Jesus' doctrinal claims. Do you note any contradiction here? I do, even making a strong charitable effort of intrepretation.

Since Jesus' teachings about the Way IS what is meant by Jesus' doctrinal claims, God's affirmation of Jesus' teachings is an affirmation (and hence, a validation or confirmation) of what Jesus taught in his doctrine. In what other plausible and relevant sense the phrase "affirmation by God" of Jesus' teachings could be understood?

In order to understand the bad and weak arguments and positions of people like Crossan, Borg and other members of the Jesus Seminar, you have to understand that their main purpose is to undermine Christianity. As consequence, they defend religious pluralism or assume atheistic-naturalistic positions (like the impossibility of miracles) in order to prevent the exclusivity of Jesus and hence of Christianity. More importantly, they want to make the figure of Jesus palatable of our society (which is strongly secular and anti-Christian) and this is why they version of the Historical Jesus (misleadingly presented as THE view of mainstream scholarship) is strongly politically correct, undermined and watered down.

Honest, serious thinkers (of whatever theological persuasion) don't mask their positions with fallacies and metaphors. They're straighforward and direct in their approach and argumentation.

For example, compare the misleading claims of people like Borg and Crossan about the resurrection, with the more honest, serious and straighforward position of atheist New Testament scholar Gerg Ludemman "It's meaningless to write anything about the "reality of the resurrection" if its nonhistoricity is certain" (The resurrection of Christ, p. 17)

If you don't believe in the historicity of the resurrection, the correct thing to do is to avoid speaking of the resurrection and specially of calling yourself as someone who believe in the resurrection.

Likewise, if you don't believe in ESP, please don't use idiosyoncratic definitions of ESP in order to call yourself a "paranormal believer". Don't fool your readers and don't mislead them with your words.

I'm interested in discovering the truth about Jesus (as with many other topics), and I've found in people like Crossan and Borg (and other members of the Jesus Seminar) a strongly misleading and prejudiced pseudo-scientific approach to the evidence about the historical Jesus, which produces a view of Jesus that cannot justify any person in calling herself properly a "Christian".

The simple fact that people like Crossan and Borg call themselves "Christians" is testimony of their duplicity and lack of intellectual seriousness.

Jeremy Lin and LINSANITY: From Harvard to the NBA: Is the New York Knicks player the new superstar of the NBA?

For some days, I'm visiting the wonderful city of New York, invited by a group of friends. I'm having a great time and a lot of fun here.

Today, I had the privilege to attend the NBA game between the New York Knicks and Los Angeles Lakers, a game that I'll remember for a long time.

The reason is that I could watch an amazing game not only between two great teams, but between two great players: Kobe Bryant and Jeromy Lin. (Jeromy who? some of you will ask)

Jeromy Lin is a Taiwanese descend NBA player, who graduated in Harvard University and was almost a "nobody" in the NBA until a week ago. Nevertheless, in the last 3 games, Lin has been in the starting line up and has had an absolutely amazing performance (more than 20 points in each game, including 38 points against the Lakers tonight).

Lin became the first player in 30 years to score at least 28 points and hand out at least 8 assists in his first NBA start. The last person to do so was the superstar Isiah Thomas who had 31 and 11 in his pro starting debut.

Tonight, he had a battle against the best player in the world (Kobe Bryant), and Lin won. Absolutely amazing. The following video is Kobe's opinion about Lin before tonight game:

LOL Kobe. I'm sure you DO KNOW WELL who Lin is now!!!!

I'm very glad of having the chance to watching this game in situ.

My opinion and prediction is that Lin will be the next NBA superstar among point guards.

Since the Knicks/Lakers game was just too recent (just finished an hour before writing this post), I've only found some videos of this game (tomorrow, in youtube, for sure you'll find more videos of this game and others about Lin):

Visit Lin's youtube channel and official website.

William Lane Craig on parapsychology and precognition, molinism and the problem of human freedom

Christian philosophers (and philosophers, scientists and scholars in general, for that matter) have not interest (and tend to be ignorant about) parapsychology and psi research.

As a rule, the few contemporary professional philosophers interested in psi research are naturalistic-materialistic-atheistic ones, who are members of militant atheist or debunking organizations (like Paul Kurtz, Paul Edwards, Robert Caroll, Keith Augustine, etc.) who, correctly, can see that the evidence for psi (and survival) is in tension with the basic premises of the metaphysical naturalistic worldview, and hence they try to refute or undermine the evidence (or explain them in terms compatible with naturalism, e.g. as self-delusions, frauds, flawed experimental methods, tricks, etc.).

Another small group of philosophers interested in psi (smaller in comparison with "skeptics"), like Chris Carter, Stephen Braude, David Ray Griffin or Robert Almeder, are not necessarily metaphysical naturalists (in the sense in which Kurtz or Augustine are) nor materialists, and hence they tend to be more sympathetic to the scientific evidence for psi.

Christian philosphers in general, are too busy refuting atheists, or defending theism or Christianity, and most of them seem show no interest in (or knowledge of) parapsychology. Some Christian believers even consider the whole topic a "Satanic matter", not worthy of further inquiry.

So, you can imagine my astonishment when, while reading Craig's very short book "The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom", he wrote sympathetically on parapsychological researches about precognition, for example:

Although many philosophers and scientists regard precognition as utter nonsense, the evidence for it is impressive (p. 97)

More dazzling to me was seeing Craig quoting technical articles in the Journal of Parapsychology, and showing good command and understanding of some works of people like Helmut Schmidt, Whately Carreton, Russell Targ, Alan Gauld, Michael Scriven, C.D.Broad and other informed psi researchers. (Craig's book is from 1987, so it doesn't include the lastest references on precognition).

You have to keep in mind that Craig's book is NOT about parapsychology. The reason he explores this matter (specifically regarding precognition) is that it is relevant to the topic he's discussing in the book, namely, if given God's foreknolwedge, human freedom is possible or not (a topic which is pressing for Christians, because the Bible suggests both God's precognition and human freedom).

Craig defends a position known as molinism (a position very controversial among Christian thinkers), which makes compatible God's omniscience (including foreknowledge of creaturely free decisions) and human freedom.

The importance of Craig's book for non-religious precognition studies

Regardless of each's person theological persuasion, I think Craig's book is important because the topic he's addressing is, mutatis mutandis, the same theoretical problem that any believer in precognition will face: If precognition exists, is freedom of the will possible?

This theoretical question almost never is addressed in most books on parapsychology, in part because most parapsychologists are not trained philosophically, and in part because parapsychology is still theretically weak even though it is empirically strong ("skeptics" will disagree about the latter point).

We could roughly summarize the problem like this:

-If precognition is true, then all of these future events known by precognition are already determined in advance (otherwise, no actual and present knolwedge of them would be possible by precognition or other means).

-If these events are determined in advanced, then free will doesn't exist (because the "will" is determined in advanced too).

-Precognition is true

-Therefore, free will doesn't exist.

The conclusion is counterintuitive. Moreover, if true, moral responsability is destroyed. Even logical reasoning and science are destroyed (because your beliefs would be determined in advanced too and you hold them due to that determism, not because they conform to valid canons of logic and evidence). We would be mere automata, with the illusion of having free will.

My preliminary opinion is that Craig's molinistic model provide a way out of this situation. Craig's model is relevant to theology but, in my opinion, it is also relevant to parapsychology and the problem of precognition and human freedom (note that the argument mentioned above is the same regardless of whether precognition is attributed to God or to human beings: the whole point is that if it exists, human freedom seems to be illusory).

I cannot summarize Craig's model yet, because to be honest with you, I don't fully grasp it (I've just began to read his book), and I don't known if it's correct or more plausible than the alternatives. I have to explore other possibilities too in order to make my mind on this matter.

But since I'm a believer in free will (as a precondition of my morality and rationality), I'm antecedently sympathetic to any model which makes precognition (divine or human) compatible with free will.

I'll have more to say about this problem in the future.

New testimonies of near-death experiences on video

Review of Dr.Ryke Geerd Hamer's lastest book Germanische Heilkunde - Kurzinformation

Ryke Geerd Hamer is a very controversial German medical doctor whose work I've studied (as a layman and curious truth seeker) for years. He's seen as the greatest medical genius of the history of medicine by his followers, and as a charlatan by his detractors. Apparently, no middle position or opinion is possible to have regarding Hamer.

In my lay opinion and based on the evidence that I've studied by myself, I think Hamer has gotten some things right regarding the origin cancer diseases and other diseases. But his theory is very complex, largely counterintuitive and easy to misunderstand, and reliable information about it almost doesn't exist in English (the best information about it, both pro and against, is available in German, French and Spanish).

His lastest and very short book "Germanische Heilkunde - Kurzinformation", which unfortunately is not available in English yet, is a summary of his basic and most recents findings on medicine commonly referred to as "German New Medicine", and now as "German Heilkunde", a name which has not specific translation in English.

Using easy-to-understand examples and explanations, Hamer explains the foundations of the 5 biological laws of Nature according to which cancer and other diseases are originated.

Hamer's 4th law refers to the role of microbes in diseases (you can read a summary of it here). In his lastest book, Hamer excludes viruses from his explanatory schema. The reason is that Hamer thinks that virus haven't been scientifically proven to exist (in previous books, Hamer thought that virus did exist and were operating in organs of an ectodermic origin, like the external skin or bronchial mucosa).

The reasons why Hamer thinks viruses' existence have not been scientifically proven are the following:

-There is not evidence for the isolation of any patogenic virus. (This is a point developed by one of Hamer's followers, James McKumiskey, whom I interviewed here).

Hamer is not a virologist, but it is obvious that he's using the arguments of virologist Stefan Lanka (who actually isolated a virus in a sea algae in the 90s) who has published evidence (mostly in German) that no patogenic virus has been isolated in human beings using the standard methods of isolation required by virology (see this English article by Lanka debunking some pictures of putative patogenic viruses).

Lanka's arguments are similar to the ones used by the Perth Group of Australia regarding the virus HIV (read carefully this debate between the Perth Group and a world's leading HIV expert named Robin Weiss, about the existence or non-existence of scientific evidence for HIV. Some arguments there are technical, but they're understable). The difference is that Lanka applies his arguments to all known patogenic virus, not just to HIV.

-Viral diseases are explained by Hamer as product of biological conflicts, or intoxications, and these causes provide a sufficient explanation for what medical science considers as "viral diseases". No virus is needed to explain these "viral" diseases.

Now, we can ask: how do Hamer explain the pictures of virus as seen in medical textbooks? His answer is that we medicine calls "virus" are actually particles (proteins) produced by the own body when it is in process of healing (specially in organs of an ectodermic origin). So, when a women solves a biological conflict of sexual frustration (e.g. after being raped or sexually abused or rejected in any way, or due to her partner's infidelity), she will develop a "cervical cancer" (= actually a healing of ulcers in the cervix, which is carried out through cell proliferation in order to fill and heal the ulcers in the cervix) and so-called Human Papilomavirus "HPV" viral particles will be found because this "virus" is caused by the own organism as part of this cell proliferative (healing) process in the cerivx (the whole process, which is a biological healing process according to Hamer, will be understood as a "lethal cancer disease" by conventional medicine, which not understand that such cell proliferation has the purpose of healing the ulcers in the cervix caused by the active phase of the conflict of sexual frustration).

Other diseases explained in Hamer's book:

-Breast cancer: Hamer explains the origin of both "ductal breast cancer" and "lobular breast cancer". The explanation is very similar to the one that you can read in this Hamer's website.

-Colon cancer: The explanation is very similar to the one provided by Hamer in this link.

-Testicle cancer: A very simlar explanation as the one provided by Hamer in this link.

-Ovary cancer: A similar explanation as seen in this link.

-Lung cancer: The origin of both "bronchial carcinoma" and "lung adenocarcinoma" are explained in Hamer's book, similar explanations are provided by Hamer here.

Endometriosis according to Hamer:

A disease explained by Hamer in his book, not available in any English website, is endometriosis.

According to conventional medicine, endometriosis is a condition in which the tissue (endometrium) normally lining the womb (or uterus) grows on different organs outside the uterus.

According to Hamer, endometriosis is the result of a burst of an ovarian cyst (which hasn't been previously diagnosed) that release firm parts into the abdominal cavity. There they take roots and form new small tissues that produce estrogen. (The conflict is a "profound loss conflict", for example after the death of a dear animal, family member, son, etc. as explained in this link. The ovarian cysts and, when they bursts, endometriosis, appear always after the solution of the conflict as explained in the link mentioned previously).

In conclusion, Hamer's book is a good introduction to his particular ideas and theories about the origin of cancer and other diseases. But people already familiar with Hamer's works won't find in this book anything new.

Perhaps the book will be translated into English in a few months.