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.