A fictional dialogue about the Historical Jesus between a truth-seeker, a liberal scholar and a New Ager (part 4)

This is the fourth part of my "fictional dialogues" about the Historical Jesus among a liberal scholar (Liberal), a truth-seeker (TS) and a New Ager (NA). Read the previous ones here, here and here.

TS: In our previous dialogue, I challenged two very common assumptions in "liberal" scholarship, namely, 1)The assumption that exaltation = falsehood = Christian invention; and 2) The assumption that if an idea has evolved with time, such evolution implies falsehood. 

Together, both assumptions astutely allow liberal scholarship to dismiss or distrust a priori any or most Christological tradition about Jesus, even the ones which pass the criteria of authenticity. Therefore, traditions which can be proved as likely to be historical on the basis of the criteria are dismissed or rejected as "inventions" or "fabrications" of Christians. And these things are presented as  historical"facts", which only the most conservative and uncritically fundamentalist Christians would dare to challenge.

The whole approach based on the above two assumptions (among others) guarantees, in advance, a reconstruction of the Historical Jesus which will be contrary or at variance with the Christian understanding of Jesus, because such understanding is precisely the one considered a priori to be largely fictional. 

Any unbiased and honest truth-seeker, even if he's an agnostic about religion, God or the paranormal, will inmediately and easily would see how much biased is this approach to the historical Jesus studies (in the same way that he would see how much biased the CSICOP/skeptical approach to parapsychology is).

In the conversation of today, my liberal friend is absent, so I can only discuss matters with my NA friend. I'd like to ask my NA friend if he has followed the shreds of the discussion so far.

NA: Despite my disagreements with your opinions, I think I've followed the main ideas of the discussion.

TS: Do you know what are the criteria of authenticity in historical Jesus studies?

NA: I've seen you have mentioned them, but I don't know exactly what they are.

TS: These criteria are methods of testing a given tradition about Jesus in the Gospels in order to discover if such traditions are likely to be historical. These criteria are "signs" or "evidence" in favor of the historical credibility of a given tradition.

NA: I see. Does it mean that if a given tradition cannot pass one of such criteria, such event must be considered non-historical?

TS: Not at all. In  order to see why not, just think about it:

What we can recover historically from a given person is always LESS than what such person did or said. As consequence, many (perhaps most) of what person did or said is not available in the recorded historical documents, but it doesn't imply that such person didn't say or do these certain things. 

At most, we can say that the evidence available doesn't provide any information about these things, therefore we cannot know anything about it. This is why the criteria has to be used as sufficient, but not as necessary, conditions of historical credibility. 

If, for example, you demand as a necessary condition for historicity that a given saying or deed pass the criterion of multiple attestation in order to be historical, and such tradition doesn't pass it, then you would have to conclude that such deed or saying wasn't historical, which is absurd: How can you know if such saying or deed, which is not multiply attested, wasn't actually said or did by Jesus? It could be historical even if it doesn't pass our criteria of authenticity, and even if not historical evidence for the saying or deed exists at all.

NA: I'm not sure I understand the point.

TS: Let me explain with another example more congenial with you.

Let's assume that A Course in Miracles (ACIM) comes from Jesus himself.

NA: Right.

TS: And let's use as an example one of the most widely used criteria of historicity, namely, the criterion of multiple attestation.

Liberal scholar Marcus Borg explains it:

if a tradition appears in an early source and in another independent source, then not only is it early, but it is also unlikely to have been made up (The Meaning of Jesus, p.12)

The rationale behind the criterion is that it is unlikely that two (or more) early and independent sources will record the same tradition about Jesus if such tradition is a pure invention. It is not impossible, but it is just unlikely.

NA: Right, it is obvious.

TS: But now consider the teachings in A Course in Miracles (ACIM), like this teaching about the Final Judgment:

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. (A Course in Miracles, chapter 2, The Separation and the Atonement).

NS: My God, I love that teaching!

TS: Fine. Now, imagine that such specific teaching doesn't appear in any other independent sources about Jesus, neither early nor later, but that it is an original contribution of ACIM, does it imply that such teaching didn't come from Jesus?

NS: Obviously not!

TS: Why not?

NS: Because perhaps the risen Jesus decided to give such information only and specifically through Helen Schucman and ACIM, presumibly to correct previous misrepresentations of his teachings and set the record straight.

TS: Exactly. 

In the hypothesis (assumed to for the argument's sake) that that such specific teaching about the proper interpretation of the Last Judgment is not multiply attested by other independent sources (which also claim to provide Jesus's teachings), it does nothing to prove that such teaching didn't come from Jesus. Perhaps it did, perhaps it didn't.

Do you agree?

NA: I strongly agree!

TS: Note, by the way, that the same argument applies to EVERYTHING in ACIM which is original to the course, and hence not multiply attested by other independent sources claiming to come from Jesus. 

Do you agree?

NA (emphatically): Yes!.

TS: Exactly the same is valid to the Gospels. If a given tradition about Jesus only appear in one source (let's say John's Gospel) and hence it is not multiply attested, it does nothing to prove that such tradition is fictional or non-historical. It could or not could be historical, but single attestation is not proof of non-historicity.

But, like in the example of ACIM, we cannot infer from the fact that a given piece of information is singly attested, to the conclusion that it is false, fictional or non-historical.

This is why the criteria of authenticity cannot be used negatively, that is, to prove non-historicity, because they are criteria FOR historicity (=historical credibility), not criteria AGAINST historical credibility.

If we use the criterion of multiple attestation negatively in assesing the ACIM, then all the original, unique, special and proper contributions of ACIM would have to be reputed to be false or unreliable.

Do you understand?

NA: I understand and in perspective it seems to be very obvious that we cannot use such criteria for negative conclusions, that is, conclusions of non-historicity. 

What I don't understand is why you stress so much such obvious fact.

TS: I stress that fact because in liberal scholarship, when you study it carefully, you discover that liberals tend to use the criteria both positively AND negatively, when it fit their purposes of denying Christological elements in Jesus' life or teachings. 

When a given tradition about Jesus doesn't pass one or several criteria  (e.g. being singly attested), many of them will tend see the tradition as non-historical (specially if such tradition poses some Christological element).

Note that such liberal use of the criteria, if used for example for assessing the reliaibility of ACIM, would produce a very truncated, incomplete, distorted and misleading view of the Jesus' teachings presented in the Course. A large portion of the Course would have to be considered unreliable and fictional.

NA: I see.

TS: For example, note carefully this argument by "Q scholar" Burton Mack:

The first followeres of Jesus did not known about or imagine any of the dramatic events upon which the narrative gospels hinge. These includes the baptism of Jesus; his conflict with Jewish authorities and their plot to kill him; Jesus' instruction to the disciples; Jesus' transfiguration, march to Jerusalem, last supper, trial, and crucifixion as the King of Jews; and finally, his resurrection from the dead and the stories of the empty tomb. All of these events must and can be accounted for mythmaking in the Jesus movements, with a little of help from the martyrology of Christ, in the period adter the Roman-Jewish war. Thus the story of Q demostrates that the narrative gospels have no claim as historical accounts (The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and the Christian origins, p.247)

As you can see, Mack is using the criterion of date (based on the Q material) negatively, that is, to produce conclusions of non-historicity (and hence, of mythmaking) of those aspects about Jesus not found in Q, specially of those aspects which are essential to the Christian understanding of Jesus.

NA: I see.

TS: Now, apply Mack's negative use of the criterion of date to a 20th source like a ACIM and see what you get. 

Much of the information (interpretations and doctrines) in ACIM doesn't appear in Q. You would have to conclude that a large portion of ACIM "must and can be accounted for mythmaking" by Helen Schucman and/or other people, specially when we realize that such information comes 19 centuries after Jesus died!.

NA: I understand. What you mean is that If something is not found in Q, it does not make it a later myth. 

TS: Right. It could not be in Q, but could be in other sources (which pass other criteria of authenticity).

NA: Or even if they don't pass any criteria, it doesn't make them non-historical.

TS: Exactly.

This is why I demand intellectual honesty and objectivity in the study of the historical Jesus.

We cannot sympathetically and uncritically agree with the conclusions of many liberal reconstructions of the historical Jesus (for example, of the Jesus Seminar) which is based upon an improper application of the criteria, but then to apply a more loose and uncritical approach when assesing alternative sources of information, like the second century Apocryphal Gospels or the 20th century sources like ACIM, Christian Science, The Urantia Book or The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus.

NA: I understand your point now.

TS: I think a sort of advance in the discussion has been reached today.

My conclusion is this:

Crucial to understand the liberal approach to the historical Jesus is to understand that many of such scholars assume that the Gospels are guilty until proven innocent. This is why, when a tradition about Jesus doesn't pass the criteria, the tradition is considered to be fictional. And in many cases, even if the tradition passes one or several criteria, the liberal "presumption of falsehood" will have overrriding force (see as example our second dialogue).

Failing to understand this amounts to failing to understand the essence of many of the liberal reconstructions about Jesus which are available today. This is also the standard liberal approach to the evidence for the resurrection.

The core of such double standards and misuse of the criteria by liberal scholars is atheism, religious pluralism and strong hostility to Christianity and emotional dislike (specially feelings of fear, guilty and angry) connected with the Christian view of Jesus, which make these people prone, extremely biased to and  intellectually sympathetic (I'm tempted to say "desperate") to find a Jesus palatable to them.

This is true and easily demostrable even if the Christian view of Jesus were false.

Such liberal approaches have nothing to do with science nor with serious historical scholarship nor with "historical facts". And this misleading pseudo-scholarship has to be exposed.

We will discuss these matters more widely in future dialogues.

Ulrich Mohrhoff on the skeptics's last card: Extraordinary Claims requires extraordinary evidence. The perfect excuse for disbelieving

The above pic shows some of the topics regarding which "skeptics" and "scientific" atheists apply the principle "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".  Read it carefully, and think if yourself agree or accept some of those phenomena or putative realitites, and if you're irrational or stupid for believing them. Think about it honestly, not simply because you disagree with "skeptics".

As you can see in the above picture (created apparently by the Center For Inquiry), some of the things to which "skeptics" apply the principle in order to disbelieve in them are:

-Parapsychology

-ESP

-The afterlife

-Auras

-Homeopathy

-Vitamin Therapy

-God

-Jesus' Resurrection

Each one of the above phenomena or entities or methods have their sophisticated defenders, and at least in my evaluation, some of them have refuted the skeptics in those fields. For example, in the following video, you can watch an atheist applying such principle in order to disbelieve the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus posed in the debate by philosopher William Lane Craig:

Craig replies that such principle is used by skeptics as way to disbelieve something which contradicts the skeptic's position. The skeptic (atheist philosopher Keith Parsons) replies that it is not the case and that he would believe it if, for example, it would appear some day in the sky a divine figure talking to Parsons. 

Such reply is clearly hypocrital and arbitrary, since Parsons could use the "extraordinary claim" principle ALSO to that experience and to claim "Wow, what an amazing hallucination or vivid dream I've had today!". After all, hallucinations and vivid dreams are frequent and ordinary, but God appearing on the sky and calling you by name is not.

In fact, this is the position of atheist philosopher J.J.C. Smart:

Someone who has naturalistic preconceptions will always in fact find some naturalistic explanation more plausible than a supernatural one... Suppose that I woke up in the night and saw the stars arranged in shapes that spelt out the Apostle's Creed. I would know that astronomically it is impossible that stars should have changed their position. I don't know what I would think. Perhaps I would think that I was dreaming or that I had gone mad. What if everyone else seemed to me to be telling me that the same had happened? Then I might not only think that I had gone mad-- I would probably go mad" (J.J.C. Smart in his contribution to the book Atheism and Theism, pp.50-51. Emphasis in blue added).

Note that Smart's position, which is contrary to the empirical evidence that he's imagining, requires more faith than belief in God and imposes on Smart a dogmatic sticking to atheism on the teeth of contrary evidence (the same sort of evidence which, according to Parsons, would convince him that God exists!).

However, to Smart's credit, he honestly admits that for a committed "naturalist", whatever possibility (even the possibility of being mad or crazy) must be preferred over any evidence supporting God's existence. In other words, naturalism is unfalisifiable, because it cannot be refuted by ANY kind evidence which an committed atheist could accept. (Paradoxically, the unfalsifability of "scientific" naturalism makes it obviously unscientific). So, Smith's naturalism is DOGMATIC and not sensible to contrary empirical evidence or argumentation.

The "extraordinary claims" principle is used as a priori way to disvelieve something contrary to the skeptic's position.

Can you think a more dogmatic way of being an atheist? I cannot.

But more interesting is the fact that skeptics themselves make "extraordinary claims" to which they never apply the skeptical principle. 

In a comment on Dean Radin's blog,  Ulrich Mohrhoff mentions some of the "extraordinary claims" believed by atheists and naturalists:

Usually they are not satisfied with evidence. They want extraordinary evidence for what they regard as extraordinary claims. I usually respond by pointing out just how extraordinary the claims of the materialist mainstream are. Certain regularities in our experience of the world are held (i) to describe all there really is and (ii) to account for the very experience from which the regularities are abstracted. How extraordinary that something can (i) exist by itself, out of relation to any consciousness or experience, and (ii) exist for someone! How can something that exists by itself be experienced? How can there be consciousness of what exists by itself? Even more extraordinary is the claim that what exists by itself is adequately described by mathematical symbols and equations. Isn’t mathematics a creation of the human mind? And is not this mind a creation of matter and evolution? How extraordinary, then, that matter should be governed by mathematical laws! And how extraordinary that mathematical laws describing certain regularities in our experience should be the very laws governing all that really exists! Where is the extraordinary evidence for all that?

Mohrhoff correctly perceives the inconsistent position of "skeptics". They believe a bunch of extraordinary claims, but don't ask for any extraordinary evidence supporting them. 

Consider atheist Michael Martin's extraordinary claim that the universe came "out of nothing":

First of all, the universe could arise spontaneously, that is, "out of nothing." Several well known cosmologists have embraced this view and it is not to be dismissed as impossible"

Or Quentin Smith's extraordinary claims, not just about the origin of the universe, but about the incredible fact that "without reason" we interrupts the reign of "non-being", which forces us to acknowledge our foundation in "nothingness":

The fact of the matter is that the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing and for nothing... We should instead acknowledge our foundation in nothingness and feel awe at the marvellous fact that we have a chance to participate briefly in this incredible sunburst that interrupts without reason the reign of non-being ." (Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Comsology. P.135. emphasis in blue added)".

If it is the "most reasonable belief" of scientific atheists, then hardly they can call properly themselves "rationalists". Such atheism based on "nothingness" requires more faith than believing in God.

Clearly a double standard is operative here. When the extraordinary claim is consistent with (or worst, required by) atheism and materialism, then it is accepted without any evidence at all. (What extraordinary evidence would support the claim that the universe came absolutely "out of nothing" instead of coming from a supernatural = beyond the working of nature = independent of natural laws cause?)

But when the extraordinary claim is contrary to atheism, naturalism, materialism or scientific orthodoxy (or even if the claim is pretty ordinary, like vitamin therapy which is in tension with orthodox medical views), then all sorts of excuses and arbitrary requeriments of evidences are invoked by these dogmatists.

In my opinion, these people are simply dogmatists and irrationalists masked as "rational skeptics".

A fictional dialogue about the Historical Jesus between a truth-seeker, a liberal scholar and a New Ager (part 3).

This is the third part of my "fictional dialogues" about the Historical Jesus among a liberal scholar (Liberal), a truth-seeker (TS) and a New Ager (NA). Read the previous ones here and here.

NA: I don't know too much about the scholarly discussion about Jesus, but continously I see the mention of "exaltation" as part of the discussions. Can both of you expand on the meaning and importance of this?

Liberal: Yes. The basic idea is that the early Christians, for whatever reasons, become convinced that Jesus was risen from the dead. From this theological conviction, Jesus was seen as divine. When time passed, and such exalted view of Jesus evolved theologically, the Gospels were written (many years after Jesus' death). 

It means that the Gospel's writers already had such theologically evolved, high-christological divine view of Jesus in mind and therefore the life of Jesus was written from that theological, divine, "exalted" perspective.

This is why, when serious, independent scientific scholars like myself discover Christological traditions in the Gospels (that is, traditions implying or suggesting a "divine" view of Jesus), we are skeptical of such traditions and we know that such traditions are likely to be inventions of the early Church and then put back into Jesus' lips.

The Gospels were written from a theological perspective which distorted the historical facts about the man Jesus, making a mere man to become a sort of divinity.

TS: I agree and disagree with several aspects of the explanation of my liberal friend. Firstly, his definition of "exaltation" is basically correct: An exalted view of Jesus is a view which see him as "more than a man", that is (specifically in Jesus' case) as divine.

My first disagreement with my liberal friend is that he assumes that exaltation = falsehood = invention of early Christians. This assumption is strongly widespread in liberal scholarship and other critical circles.

Obviously, if you're an atheist like my liberal friend (see our previous dialogue about my liberal friend agreeing with the Jesus Seminar's explicit naturalism), then obviously you cannot accept that "exaltation" could be rooted in Jesus' own nature, since God doesn't exist and hence Jesus couldn't be actually divine.

But in the absence of any proof for atheism, God existence is possible and therefore we have to be open also to the possibility that Jesus was divine in some sense (e.g. being the ultimate and special revelation of God to men), and hence that the exaltation which existed in the minds of the early Christians was basically factual, not fictional. 

It is a matter of evidence to discover that, not a matter of a priori atheistic assumptions which exclude, in advance, Jesus' putative divinity.

What evidence from historical scholarship proves that Jesus was not divine? None. Perhaps my liberal friend is right and Jesus was a mere man and the exalted Christian view of him is false. This is possible.But no historical evidence, which pass the criteria of authenticity, has shown that. The opinion of my liberal friend (and liberals in gerneral) is a mere possibility, not a proven fact of history.

Just think about it: If (for the argument's sake) an omnipotent God exists, why exactly such God couldn't be incarnate as a human being (e.g. in Jesus or in any other person) for specific divine purposes? Why not, exactly? After all, if as many believers in survival (like my New Ager friend) think reincarnation is at least possible and the individual souls can take several bodies sucessively after previous deaths, why exactly an omnipotent spiritual God (if exists) not could take the body of a person, that is, to be incarnate in the form of a human being to specific, special divine purposes on Earth?

Note carefully that I'm not claiming that it was the case. My point is simply that, in the absence of any proof for materialism and atheism, a fully omnipotent spiritual God could exist and, if he decides it, he could to be incarnate in the form of a human being. This possibility seems to be open, in the absence of any proof for materialism and atheism.

Therefore, we cannot exclude the Christian claim about Jesus' divinity in advance, that is, before we sit down on the table to look on the evidence.

(If we like or not the above possibility is besides the point. The possibility is there, even if for emotional, religious or ideological reasons we reject it).

So, the view that exaltation = falsehood = invention of early Christians rests on the unproven and implicit assumption that atheistic naturalism is true, because it entails that divine exaltation was not Jesus' own ontological condition, but simply a pure subjective BELIEF (a false one) in the minds of his followers. This is a working (atheistic) assumption, not a conclusion of scientific, historical scholarship.

My second disagreement is with another of my liberal friend's assumption: He seems to assume that the evolution of a belief implies the falsehood of such belief. Hence, if the theological, divine view of Jesus has evolved in the minds of Christians, it implies that such belief is not true.

Let's pass the fact that in the earliest sources, like the so-called Q material, we find evidence of High Christological traditions.

My interest here is to examine the logic of the liberal assumption according to which evolution of a belief about an topic X implies its falsehood.

On reflection, it is clear that it is a version of a genetic fallacy.

There is no compelling reason to accept such fallacious assumption. Consider the case of science: our ideas about the natural world have evolved from the purely mechanistic, deterministic Newtonian view of nature into the non-local, indeterministic, apparently (in some interpretations) consciousness-dependent quantum mechanics view of nature. Does such amazing evolution of our scientific ideas about nature imply that our current quantum mechanical ideas are false?

Obviously not. 

The evolution of an idea about X could mean that our progressive and evolving understanding of X is more refined and closer to the actual nature of X, matching it more accurately. In order to deny this, you have to know in advance the actual nature of X, and to prove that the "evolving ideas" about X don't match it.

As analogy: let's to assume (just for the example's sake), that Jesus was divine. As consequence, Jesus claimed and implied (with his words and behaviour) to be divine and having special divine authority (for example, forgiving sins, correcting the Old Testament's laws, claiming to be the only way to the Father and teaching authoritatively about God's kingdom) and in addition was risen from the death into heaven (which in a Jewish context was a prerrogative of God who was the only one to have the power and decision to resurrect people and receiving them into heaven for eternity).

In this case, the early understanding of such "divine man" by his Jewish followers (strongly prejudiced against any man being divine) could be incomplete, due to the primitive Jewish ideas and overall confusion. More a posteriori reflection about the life and deeds of such man would make easy to understand that he was divine. The idea has evolved from a confused, more or less incomplete view that such person is a mere prophet into the idea that such man is fully divine and hence with special and unique prerrogatives.

Note that the evolution of the idea from "mere prophet or master" to "a fully divine man" is more accurate one in this case, in the sense that it is closer to the actual nature of such man (which, ex hypothesi, we'd assumed to be a divine, for the purposes of the above example/analogy).

Again, I'm not claiming that it was the case, historically speaking. I'm simply showing an example in which the evolution of an idea, even if theologically oriented, doesn't imply its falsehood, because if X is of a theological nature, then the evolution of the ideas about X from the early "non-theological categories" into "theological categories", will be more accurate and true.

In conclusion, I see no reason to think that if an idea about Jesus evolved into a more theologically oriented view of him, it automatically implies that such ideas are false. Another possibility is that such theological reflection revelead, clarified and matched the theological nature of Jesus himself.

It is a matter of evidence to discover which ones of these possibilities is more likely given the evidence, for example, examining if the evidence offers reasons to think that Jesus was "more than a mere man" (e.g. if in contrast with all the other known men in history, Jesus was actually risen from the dead).

Liberal: What an amazing defense of the Christian view of Jesus by a "truth-seeker"!. I must assume that you also accept the myths about the virgin birth, the speculations about the trinity, and the fantasies about the physical resurrection.

TS: I don't see my above argumentation as a defense of the Christian view of Jesus. I consider as a defense of the possibility that such view could be true. My contention is that we cannot exclude it in advance based upon a bunch of unproven assumptions (like atheism or naturalism).

On the other hand, exactly what aspects of my above argumentation imply an acceptation or dependence of the virgin's birth or trinitarianism? My argumentation is purely philosophical and historical, not theological.

Trinitarianism is a theological doctrine based on reflection of the raw data of the New Testament and my above argumentation doesn't rest on any theological doctrines. I'm even not assuming God's existence in these dialogues!

Liberal: You're assuming that atheism is false.

TS: No, I'm simply saying that atheism and materialism have not be proven to be true. Therefore, we cannot assume atheism and materialism as true in order to deny the possibility that Jesus was divine.

Even though I'm a theist, I'm not assuming that theism is true in these dialogues. My position in these dialogues is agnostic, both about God's existence and about Jesus's divine or non-divine nature.

You have the burden to prove that atheism and naturalism are true (since your position rests on them, as you citation of the Jesus Seminar's book shows), that Jesus was a mere man and not divine, that the early Christians' exalted view of Jesus is purely subjective and not rooted in Jesus himself, and that Christological traditions were put into Jesus' lips.

You have claimed all of these and hence you have the burden of proof of your claims.

You cannot expect that we will accept your claims uncritically. 

Liberal: In our previous dialogues, I've provided plausible arguments for most of these contentions, but you are simply blind to them. You tend to take for granted everything what the Gospels say.

TS: False. You have provided only a bunch of suggestions and mere possibilities ("it could be easy", "perhaps", "it is possible that Christians invented that") and turning them into "facts" and "evidence".

 In reply, I've shown that your mere possibilities and suggestions is NOT evidence.

And I don't take for granted anything what the Gospels say. I try to support my conclusions about the historical Jesus using the criteria of authenticity, not with speculations and prejudices about "Galileo's telescope proves atheism", "secular heavens", "science cannot accept miracles", or unproven conspiracy theories of Christians putting into Jesus' lips high Christological traditions.

Liberal: I disagree.

TS: Fine.

NA: Hey guys, take it easy. I've enjoyed and learned a lot from these dialogues.

I'd like to express my opinion about the "evolution" of ideas. I tend to agree with our liberal friend that the evolution of ideas about Jesus will tend to cause a distortion of them.

TS: I've shown that such assumption is unwarranted, since such assumption excludes the possibility that the evolved theological ideas match more accurately Jesus' own nature and identity.

In order to show that the theologically evolved idea about Jesus is false, we need to know in advance that Jesus was not divine. And this is what I'm challenging our liberal friend to prove, since he's claiming that.

But let that pass.

I think your acceptation of the liberal assumption "evolution of ideas about Jesus and his teachings = falsehood", backfires against you, my NA friend. Because you accept the 20th century source about Jesus called A Course in Miracles (ACIM), which poses highly evolved ideas about Jesus' teachings and doctrines!

Why exactly the evolution of the ideas from the first century Gospels' Jesus to the 20th century ACIM' Jesus is true, reliable and accurate, but the putative evolution of ideas from Jesus' life to the moment in which the first century Gospels were writen by people who knew Jesus' real-life disciples (and people, like Paul, who claimed to receive Jesus' direct post-mortem teaching and who checked the Gospels he learnt with the disciples) are unreliable, misleading, distorted and largely false?

Obviously, a double standard is operative here.

NA: You're assuming that ACIM is not Jesus' own communication.

TS: Not at all. It is possible that ACIM provides Jesus' actual doctrines (in the same way that it is possible that Jesus was an extraterrestial or a master of Yoga or even that Jesus never existed), but mere possibility is not evidence. Specially when such claim comes from a 20th century source, instead of first century sources which are historically closer to the historical Jesus's life, deeds and teachings.

You cannot ask me to believe in ACIM (without any evidence that it comes from Jesus), and at the same time to ask me to distrust and assume to be largely false or unreliable the first century sources which are closer to the historical Jesus.

Such arbitrary and prejudiced double standard is unacceptable for any unbiased truth-seeker.

In any case, my main point is that the evolution of an idea doesn't imply its falsehood. And certainly, ACIM provides a highly evolved reinterpretation of Jesus' teachings. If you, my NA friend, are consistent, then you would have to conclude that such evolution falsifies the doctrines in ACIM.

 

But here is where the double standard is clearly operative: If the evolution of the ideas is in direction of a Christian understanding of Jesus (even if such understanding comes from the earliest sources like Paul or the Q material), then such evolution is assumed to be false and unreliable.

But if the evolution of ideas are wholly or partially different than the Christian understanding of Jesus, then such evolution is assumed to be true, accurate, reliable or at least are seen sympathetically (even if such understanding comes from a extremely later, 20th century source like ACIM!).

Can you understand what I mean? Obviously, the double standard operative here is based on the implicit assumption that the Christian understanding of Jesus is false or cannot be true. And in turn, this assumption is not based on historical facts, but on philosophical and theological ideas and emotional commitments.

NA: I have no reason to doubt that Helen Schumman' inner voice was not Jesus himself.

TS: On parity of reasoning, then we have no reason to doubt Paul's claim that Jesus himself gave to him the Gospel.

In Galatians 1:11-12, Paul wrote:

For I want you to know, brothers and sisters,[a] that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ

Why exactly the 20th century psychologist Schumman's "inner voice" is more reliable, veridical or authentic than the first century Paul's revelation? Tell me please.

NA: I don't know about Paul and whether he received or not such information.

TS: And we don't know whether Schumman's "inner voice" came from a source outside her own imagination, or if it did, that such information came from Jesus himself or from other paranormal or spiritual sources which falsely claimed or implied to be Jesus.

NA: I find ACIM's doctrines more acceptable, refreshing, loving and universal than the Gospels.

TS: This is an autobiographical statement about yourself, and does nothing to prove that ACIM's doctrines come from Jesus.

NA: I think we are talking pass each other.

TS: I don't think so. I think I understand perfectly your position.

I think simply you're hostile to the Christian view of Jesus for emotional or ideological reasons and therefore you apply (perhaps unconsciously) a double standard on behalf of alternative sources of information about Jesus which are more palatable to you.

With due respect, yours is not the position of a truth-seeker who wants to follow the evidence wherever it leads, but of someone who (presumibly, due to bad emotional experiences and wounds with Christianity) has created a double standard which, in advance, undermines the credibility of the Christian view about Jesus and favors alternative "sources" about Jesus which are congenial with you (even if such alternative sources are extremely later and are not supported by any evidence at all).

But I don't want to speculate about your psychology or motivations, I'm more interested in your arguments.

This dialogue is already too long, so let's to rest a little bit and we'll continue discussing these interesting matters later.

A fictional dialogue about the Historical Jesus between a truth-seeker, a liberal scholar and a New Ager (Part 2)

The first part of this dialogue can be read here.

TS: I'd like to press a point about a previous assumption which you made in our previous dialogue.

Liberal: Fine.

TS: You quoted sympathetically the preface of a book by the Jesus Seminar in which a secularist and atheist approach to the historical Jesus is implied.

Liberal: Yes, and I'm glad to repeat it:

the Christ of creed and dogma . . . can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo’s telescope. The old deities and demons were swept from the skies by that remarkable glass. Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo have dismantled the mythological abodes of the gods and Satan, and bequeathed us secular heavens. (emphasis by TS)

I entirely agree with the Jesus Seminar that Galileo's telescope implies secularism and atheism. More exactly, sciences like astronomy have shown that atheistic naturalism is true. This is very deep, intellectually sophisticated and powerful scientific insight. 

This insight is a testimony of the intellectual power and unprecedent genius of the members of the Jesus Seminar and liberal scholarship in general (to which I'm glad to belong), towering intellects that I'd wish were more widespread among New Testament scholars.

TS: But if you approach the historical Jesus with such assumption, then whatever evidence for the supernatural is found in the Gospels will be assumed to be false (= non-factual), because your naturalistic methodology excludes it in advance as fictional.

Liberal: Yeah, because what we want to find is the truth, not ancient mythology nor superstitions.

TS: But what would happen if the truth is precisely that the historical Jesus was supernatural (e.g. divine). What would happen if Jesus was, actually, the Son of God and the incarnation of God, as Christians believe? In this case, your methodology will exclude an essential (and crucial!) aspect of the historical Jesus on behalf of his purely human aspects.

Note that I'm not saying that it was the case. I'm saying that your methodology would exclude it if it were the case that Jesus was divine.

Liberal: It is impossible. But even if it were possible, science can allow only what is natural.

TS: You see. Your answer reveals your underlying philosophical assumptions and how they condition, in advance, the results. They show that for you the truth is secondary, what is primary for you is to find a naturalistic understanding and portrait of the historical Jesus, which are the only ones allowed by your methodology. 

What you and your collegues have made is to define historical truth in terms of naturalistic truth, so if something doesn't fit with such naturalistic explanations it is considered non-historical, fictional, an invention of Christians.

Liberal: You call yourself a truth-seeker, but you seem to be extremely credulous of early Christians and their pre-scientific, theological superstitions.

TS: What do you mean?

Liberal: Well, in a fundamentalist-like fashion, you take for granted and at face-value that the bunch of stories found in the Gospels are true.

TS: You don't understand me. That is not at all my approach as a seeker for the truth.

As I argued in our previous dialogue, I've defended particular traditions about the Historical Jesus employing the standard criteria of authenticity. I'm fully and exclusively playing with your critical rules of evidence evaluation.

I'm not even assuming the general reliaibility (let alone, the inerrancy) of the Gospels.

Nothing in my argument implies that "I take for granted" what Christians say.

What I'm saying is twofold: 1-If we apply consistently the criteria of authenticity, several crucial aspects of the Christian view of Jesus (Christology) can be justified on historical grounds. And 2- That liberal scholars like you dismiss such evidence appealing to mere assumptions and speculations, not supported by any evidence.

For example, the standard application of the criterion of mutiple attestation supports the conclusion that Jesus was born in Bethelhem, not in Nazareth. Therefore, I conclude based upon the evidence that it is more likely that Jesus was born in Bethelhem than in Nazareth.

Liberal: You see. You're too uncritical of the possibility that Christians created such an invention in order to make Jesus appear as the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament. I find the latter to be more likely. And my collegues agree.

 Most liberal scholars agree that Jesus was NOT born in Bethelhem.

TS: Is it uncritical for me to reach a conclusion based on the criterion of multiple attestation?

Liberal: Well no...

TS: What positive evidence do you have that Jesus was NOT born in Bethelhem?

Liberal:  The Old Testament predicts that the Messiah was going to born in Bethelhem. And after Jesus was exalted by the early Christians, it was very easy for them to create the tradition that Jesus was born in Bethelhem, not in Nazareth.

TS: You see. You dismiss the criterion of mutiple attestation based on your "very easy" assumption. You don't accept the criteria of authenticity when it supports Christian conclusions (in particular, traditions implying High Christology). You only accept the criteria of authenticity when they support anti-Christian or not distinctively Christian conclusions.

You use the criteria inconsistently.

In particular, your answer about Jesus' birth place assumes:

1-That Jesus was not the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament and 

2-That the criterion of multitple attestation supporting Jesus' birth place in Bethelhem is defeated by your ("very easy") assumption that Christians invented such traditions about Jesus' birth place.

I'd like to know that positive, concrete EVIDENCE can you offer for these couple assumptions.

Liberal: I only am critical of the possibility that Christians have made up such stories, a point regarding which you seem to be completely blind.

TS: False. I'm fully aware of such possibility too, but mere possibility is NOT evidence.

Arguing that something is possible doesn't make it actual. You have to present evidence that shows that such possibility was actualized in the specific case we're discussing (e.g. Jesus' birth place). Sheer posibility is NOT evidence.

The criterion of multiple attestation supports that Jesus was born in Bethelhem, but your claim that "it was possible" or "it could be the case" or "it is easy" that Christians "could" invent such a thing is NOT evidence. It is sheer speculation and prejudice (a prejudice which overrides contrary evidence supported by the criteria of authenticity!)

It reminds me of professional skeptic Ray Hyman who, in a paper reviewing the evidence for remote viewing, agreed that he couldn't find any flaw in it, but he remains skeptic because "it is possible" that undetected potential flaws will appear in the future. 

In Hyman's words:

The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present.

Note that Hyman agrees that the SAIC experiments were well-designed and not flaw is evident in them (in the analogy with the historical Jesus research, we would say that a given tradition pass the criteria of authenticity, like Jesus being born in Bethelhem which pass the criterion of multiple attestation).

But since Hyman is extremely prejudiced against the paranormal, the above evidence is insufficient and hence he appeals to his own prejudices as a overrriding reason to remain unconvinced (despite of the evidence!). 

In Hyman's words:

Just the same, it is impossible in principle to say that any particular experiment or experimental series is completely free from possible flaws. An experimenter cannot control for every possibility--especially for potential flaws that have not yet been discovered.

In other words, since it is "possible" that undiscoveried potential flaws are present (even if not concrete, specific evidence of such flaws exist), Hyman is glad to keep his skepticism intact.

Hyman's fallacy is the same of many liberal scholars: Assuming that a mere "possibility" is evidence. (In the case of Hyman, the mere possibility of "undetected flaws", and in the case of liberal scholars the mere possibility of Christians inventing wholly fictional stories and put them in Jesus' lips). 

You cannot refute scientific evidence appealing to mere "possibilities", in the same way that you cannot refute Christological traditions about Jesus which pass the criteria of authenticity appealing to mere "possibilities" of Christian inventions.

Hyman wouldn't appeal to "mere possibilities" to cast doubts on the theory of evolution or the evidence for the correlation between mental and brain states (because Hyman is sympathetic to these views!), and the liberal scholars wouldn't appeal to "mere possibilities of Christian inventions" to deny the criterion of multiple attestation which supports the existence of the historical Jesus (as some mythicists and denialists like atheist Richard Carrier do).

Hyman, his fellows skeptics and liberal scholars, use the "mere possibilities" gambit only to deny or cast doubts on views that they don't like (the paranormal in the case of skeptics, the Christian/divine view of Jesus in the case of liberals).

My position, far from being an example of credulity, it is an example OBJECTIVITY, HONESTY and CONSISTENCY in the use and evaluation of the evidence. I have not an axe to grind against the Christian view of Jesus and therefore have no problem in fully accepting evidence which supports it.

Liberal:  I don't know who Hyman is, but I tend to agree with his skepticism: Parapsychology has a long story of fraud and deception, so the presumption of fraud is largely justified.

TS: But such presumption cannot override the concrete, specific evidence found in specific experiments supporting parapsychological claims. If the experiment is well-designed and the evidence technically good, then you must accept it (regardless of the supposed "long" history of frauds in parapsychology).

Likewise, if the evidence that a given Christological tradition is good (e.g. being found in the Q material and/or passing other criteria), then you must accept that it is likely to be historical.

No untestable speculation about "it was easy to Christians to put that in Jesus' lips" will refute such evidence.

Liberal: I don't agree at all with your arguments. I find them too much credulous and sympathetic to the Christian view and to the "paranormal".

TS: And I find your views too much biased against the Christian view (and, apparently, to the paranormal too). You are inconsistent in the handling of the evidence. 

You only accept the criteria of authenticity when they support non-Christological traditions!

Liberal: I don't think so.

TS: Let me test it: How many of your liberal collegues accept the evidence for the resurrection? I don't want to discuss this now, just a simple question.

Liberal: Virtually nobody, as far I know. We accept some facts, but not the resurrection itself.

TS: But the evidence for the resurrection passes SEVERAL of the criteria of authenticity.

Liberal: Perhaps, but it is a miracle and science cannot accept miracles.

TS: But then their rejection of the resurrection is not based on historical evidence, but on a naturalistic prejudices against miracles.

Like in the case of the teachings of Jesus (and teachings about his divine self-perception), in the case of the resurrection you only seem to accept those aspects of the evidential database which are palatable to you (instead of accepting those aspects which pass the criteria of authenticity, regardless of whether they support or not the Christian view).

Liberal: You again comes with your repetitive accusation of "assumptions" and "prejudices".  We are scientists, not religious believers. My only prejudice is the prejudice of science! Read again the preface of the Jesus Seminar book: science has give us SECULAR heavens! 

No God, devil, spirits, resurrections, etc. can be allowed!

NA: Can I participate in this exchange?

TS and Liberal: Welcome!

NA: I don't understand your use of "natural" vs" supernatural". For me, "everything is consciousness", and this includes both the spiritual world and the physical world.

We are manifestations of consciousness.

TS: How do you define "consciousness", NA?

NA: For me, it is the all-pervading intelligence of the cosmos.

TS: Is such consciousness a concrete, individual PERSON?

NA: Well...

TS: If it is a person, it is what theists call GOD, and basically you're saying that such person created everything that exists (besides himself) which is also an essential point of theism.

NA: I don't see it as a person like you or me, I think it is beyond of it...

TS: But theists don't think God is "like you or me". Being a person doesn't mean being a HUMAN person. Certainly, theists will agree with you that God is a lot beyond of it...

NA: What I mean is that for me God is a kind of universal consciousness which is in eveything that we see, even in the most little atom we can find intelligence, consciousness.

TS (realizing that his NA friend seems to be confused about the concepts, conflating pantheism with theism, intelligence with consciousness, and not realizing that the latter, in their higher levels, are properties of persons,  TS decides to leave the discussion here and pass the ball to the liberal): Perhaps my liberal friend wants to say something.

Liberal: I'm an atheist and I don't think I can contribute much to such speculations. For me, "consciousness" is a property of the physical brain and doesn't exist without a physical brain. Talking of "universal consciousness" only would make sense if an "universal biological brain" would exist, and this is nonsense.

The scientific worldview cannot countenance such fantasies.

Read Susan Blackmore's books on consciousness for details.

TS: I think we can discuss more about God and consciousness in future dialogues, but my main interests in these dialogues is to discuss about the historical Jesus.

See you the next time!

End of this dialogue

A fictional dialogue about the Historical Jesus between a truth-seeker and a liberal scholar (plus interventions of a New Ager)

This is the first part of a series of a friendly and fictional dialogues between a truth-seeker about the historical Jesus (a person who wants to know really who was Jesus, with no axe to grind against Christianity and no materialistic and secular prejudices, hence open to follow the evidence about Jesus wherever it can lead) and a liberal scholar.

In this dialogue, the topic of discussion is the dating of the Gospels, specifically Mark's Gospel. I'll use "TS" to identify the Truth-Seeker and "Liberal" to identify the liberal scholar. At the end to the discussion, we'll see the participation of an unexpected guest: A New Ager, which I'll identify as NA.

Enjoy... and above all THINK for yourself.

Liberal: New Testament scholarship agrees that the first written Gospel was Mark's Gospel, and it is dated around the year 70 AD. Do you agree?

TS: Yes, but with important qualifications. 

Liberal: Which ones?

TS: It is not the agreement of "New Testament scholarship", only of MOST New testament scholars. But there are some prominent scholars who disagree.

Liberal: Yeah, but I'm talking about independent, scientific scholarship, not about "scholarship" from the ultra conservative camp.

TS: I'll let pass your dismissing comment about "ultra conservative scholarship" (which implies that only non-conservative scholars are scientific, which is demostrably false as I'll show in the course of our dialogues) and your uncritical view that such scholars are "independent" (independent from what? From religion, perhaps... but are they independent from naturalism? From atheism? From anti-Christianity? From religious pluralism?)

It is simply false that only conservative scholars date Mark's Gospels earlier than 70 AD. An example is agnostic scholars and member of the Jesus' Seminar, James Crossley, who's an expert on Mark, and dates it at the end of 30s or mid 40s!

Another example of liberal scholar John A. T. Robinson who also suggested early dates for most of the New Testament material.

Liberal: Well, yes...

TS: Then it is false that only "ultra" conservative scholars provide an early date of Mark's Gospel and other NT material. You statement is either uninformed, intellectually dishonest or simply you were uncareful to make your statement accurately. I assume it is the latter case.

Liberal: Fine, my point was simply to show that most scholars agree regarding the date of Mark's Gospel, and certainly most scholars have not been convinced by the arguments of Crossley and Robinson.

TS: Fine, but in science the opinion of the majority is of secondary importance, what we want to do is to examine the evidence for and against a given position. Can you tell me what evidence is there to support the view of "most" scholars regarding Mark's Gospel dating?

Liberal: the best and standard argument in favor of a late dating of Mark's Gospel (an argument which has convinced most scientific scholars) is this:

The Gospel of Mark refers to Jesus's prediction of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. In Mark 13:2, we can read: “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

So scholars suggest that such Gospel was written AFTER the destruction of the temple (which happened in 70 AD), and that such Jesus' prediction never happened: It was put back in Jesus' lips after Jesus' figure had been exalted (i.e. considered divine) among Christians.

You won't deny that this is a very good, convincing, scientific argument, would you?

TS: It is a "good, convincing, scientific argument" only if you ASSUME that Jesus didn't have the powers to predict the future. But if he was the Son of God as the Gospels portray him, why exactly he couldn't predict the future?

You're assuming, not proving, that the Christian view of Jesus is false.

Moreover, even if he was NOT the Son of God, he could have precognitive powers (a phenomenon studied by contemporary parapsychology) and hence his prediction could be historical, not fictional.

So, you're also assuming that the evidence of parapsychology for precognition is invalid and that precognition doesn't occur.

Liberal: Well, I'm a scientific, not a religious nor paranormal believer. From a scientific point of view, it is more reasonable to think that such prediction was fictional, and puts back into Jesus' lips.

TS: False. 

Your assumption doesn't come from science, but from your personal philosophical prejudice that the paranormal cannot occur and that the divine view of Jesus is false. You have not proven these assumptions.

Liberal: Are you asking me to assume that the divine view of Jesus is true?

TS: NO, I'm not asking you to assume that. But (for the same reason), you shouldn't assume that such view is false. 

Precisely the purpose of the investigation is to discover who Jesus really was, not to "assume" anything which determines in advance our conclusions.

Liberal: I disagree, science works under the assumption that the supernatural doesn't occur. Period.

TS: It is not clear to me that science is committed to the view that the supernatural doesn't occur. But let's assume that for the argument's sake.

In such case science is not interested in the truth, but only naturalistic explanations (which would be false regarding some supernatural phenomenon if it has ever occured). 

Just imagine that Jesus was actually the Son of God: According to your view of science, you begin with a pressuposition which will drive you, necessarily, to FALSE conclusions about him. Because if the truth is that Jesus is divine, you only will allow in your reconstruction of the Historical Jesus his human aspects, not his divine ones... so your picture of him will be incomplete, misleading and false.

Your view of science limits the discovery of the truth (at least regarding phenomena, like Jesus' resurrection, which suggest a supernatural intervention). 

If you're interested in the truth, I suggest you to be more critical of your naturalistic assumptions.

As atheist philosopher of science Bradley Monton comments:

If science really is permanently committed to methodological naturalism, it follows that the aim of science is not generating true theories. Instead, the aim of science would be something like: generating the best theories that can be formulated subject to the restriction that the theories are naturalistic . . . science is better off without being shackled by methodological naturalism  (Bradley Monton, “Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision”, 1, 2 & 9-10)

Liberal: I disagree with it. For me science is naturalistic. Period. 

I agree with the introduction to the main Jesus Seminar's book:

the Christ of creed and dogma . . . can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo’s telescope. The old deities and demons were swept from the skies by that remarkable glass. Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo have dismantled the mythological abodes of the gods and Satan, and bequeathed us secular heavens

You won't change my mind about it.

TS: Fine, but it is clear that your view is based on starting naturalistic assumptions, not on facts.

Liberal: I don't think so, I'm interested in scientific facts, not on religious dogmas.

TS (realizing such dogmatism of his liberal friend, he decides to press even more the point... but an unexpected and common friend enters the discussion, the New Ager): 

 NA: Can I say something?

TS and Liberal (together): Sure, welcome!

NA: I think the important thing about Jesus is not the dating of the Gospels, but Jesus' teachings.

In my opinion, the major mistake of Christianity is to have created a religion around a person, instead of around his message. And the important thing is the message, not the messenger.

Liberal: I agree largely with that point.

TS: The problem is that NA's view assumes the falsehood of Jesus' teaching in the early Q tradition (in Mattew 11: 27/ Luke 10: 22) and multiply attested by the last part of John 14:6, in which Jesus clearly say that HE (Jesus/The Son) is the only way to the Father.

You have to assume that certain traditions implying exclusivism in Jesus' self-perception, which pass positively one or more criteria of authenticity (as the Q tradition mentioned above) are false and fictional.

And such assumption is not based on the evidence of the historical Jesus, but in a priori theological and philosophical views about how salvation "must" be (mainly, religious pluralism).

If such traditions are true (as the evidence, which pass the criteria of authenticity, shows) then Jesus' teaching cannot be separated from his person, because (in Jesus' own perception) his person was intrinsically connected to salvation. His message was a message of salvation and reconciliation with God THROUGH himself!.

So, NA's opinion (very common on the New Age circles and even among some liberal scholars) is based on an incomplete and extremely biased approach to the historical evidence about Jesus' self-perception.

Liberal: I don't think those traditions are historical, they were put back into Jesus' lips after he was exalted.

TS (noting that his liberal's friend argument is based on the same assumption than the dating of the Gospels, adds): Well, you have made a claim and hence have the burden of proof. 

You have to prove:

-The negative claim that such traditions are NOT historical (i.e. that Jesus never claimed that)

-That the criteria of authenticity which such traditions pass are irrelevant in this case.

-And that such traditions are actually false stories created entirely by the Christians and put back into Jesus' lips.

And you have to prove all of this with positive, concrete EVIDENCE, not with more assumptions.

Liberal: You again misrepresent my view when you say I'm grounding it in "assumptions". This is false, I ground my views on scientific, historical facts.

TS: I don't think so.

Liberal: You can think whatever you want.

NA: Wait a minute, let me reply to TS' contentions

My opinion about the historical Jesus doesn't come only from "a priori theological and philosophical" prejudices, as TS claims. 

I have other sources of information about Jesus like the Apocryphal Gospels and A Course in Miracles.

TS: What evidence is there for the reliability of these sources?

NA: Well, the Apocryphal Gospels are additional sources about Jesus, besides the four Gospels which the Chruch arbitrarily chose as "inspired".

TS: False, the Church chose the four Gospels because they were the early ones and hence the more reliable. The canonical Gospels are all from the first century and hence the earliest biographical information about the historical Jesus.

The Apocryphal Gospels come from the second century and after, and everybody knew that they were forgeries.

I think my liberal friend would agree with it,

Liberal: For most part, it is true. The Apocryphal Gospels are later material and therefore less reliable for the reconstruction of the historical Jesus.

TS: And A Course in Miracles is a 20th century document!, hence it is disconnected of the historical Jesus by almost 2000 years!

NA: Yeah, but it comes from Jesus' himself!

TS: What evidence can you provide for such extraordinary claim?

NA: When you read it, you can feel it... it is hard to explain, but you can feel in your heart that it is Jesus' voice. Moreover, it is compatible with the discoveries of New Testament scholarship.

TS: Well, mormons also claim that the truth of the Book of Mormon can be felt in their hearts... your claim is not different from mormons. In any case, this is a subjective feeling, not a matter of historical, scholarly evidence.

And the views of A Course In Miracles are not compatible with New Testament Scholarship, only with SOME radical reconstructions of the historical Jesus by SOME scholars like SOME members in the Jesus Seminar.

In any case, it doesn't provide independent attestation because the author of the book could easily gather such information precisely from such liberal scholarly sources, specially if they share the same anti-Christian animosity of most liberal scholars.

You have not provided any single piece of scientific or historical evidence for the scholarly reliability of ACM, nor for your claim that it comes from Jesus.

My liberal friend, who doesn't believe in the afterlife, should agree with it.

Liberal: Yes I agree and it has nothing to do with my unbelief in the afterlife. No prominent historical Jesus scholar or New Testament historian takes ACM seriously (at least not in their scholarly work about the reconstruction of the Historical Jesus), and such New Age paranormal sources are not taken seriously among scientists.

NA: I disagree with both of you, but it is fine.

End of the discussion... stay tuned for future dialogues