A fictional dialogue about the Historical Jesus between a truth-seeker, a liberal scholar and a new ager (part 10). CONCLUSIONS.

 

 

TS: In our previous dialogues, we discussed the evidence for and against the empty tomb. I think it was proved the evidence was more convincing than the objections to it, although my liberal friend would disagree.

Liberal: Sure.

TS: Since everybody agrees that the disciples had the experience of the risen Jesus and that that gave origin to the Christian faith, I think it is a waste of time to discuss the evidence for it.

I let the hypothetical readers of these dialogues to figure out which is the best explanation for the empty tomb, the physicality of the resurrection appearences of Jesus, the origin of the belief of the disciples that Jesus was risen from the death (contrary to the Jewish expectation about the resurrection) and the transformation of Paul (from an enemy of Christians to become their foremost apologist) after seeing Jesus' appearence to him.

I'd like to suggest that in today's dialogue, we pose some closing remarks and conclusions of these discussions.

NA and liberal: Agreed.

TS:: My conclusion is this, and please read it carefully:

One of the most important things in the searching for the truth is consistency, that is, not using double standards to reach conclusions that we like.

In my investigation about the historical Jesus, I've discoveried massive inconsistencies which are unworthy of true, serious, honest researchers. I've already discussed the inconsistency of "liberals", who portrait themselves as independent, scientific investigators of the Historical Jesus.

In the case of New Agers, the most egregious inconsistencies are these:

1)People sympathetic to the Jesus Seminar (and other liberals) and, simultaneously, sympathetic to A Course in Miracles, Conversations with God, the Aquariam Gospel of Jesus, and other new age 20th sources about Jesus.

The lack of consistency can seen here: If you use the same hypercritical methodology that the Jesus Seminar and other liberals use with the 1st century Christian sources, to research the 20th century sources about Jesus, you would reach extremely skeptical conclusions about such 20th new age sources too.

For example:  as a rule, due to the influence of atheistic naturalism, liberals are skeptical of traditions about Jesus which present a post-mortem Jesus giving any information or teaching (they consider these traditions to be "fictional"). On parity of reasoning, the whole of ACIM and the other 20th centuries sources would have to be considered fictional, since they are sources which provide Jesus' information... 19 centuries after he died.

By this liberal methodological criterion alone, the whole of ACIM and other sources are non-starters.

Consider this: In Galatians 1:11-12, Paul's claim that Jesus passed his teachings to him directly, which is seen by liberals as "non-factual" (they don't deny necessarily Paul's experiences, what they deny is that actually Jesus appeared to Paul and taught him the Gospel). Liberals and New Agers laugh, dismiss, distrust and are very skeptical of Paul's claim that Jesus taught and tutored the Gospel to him, but simultaneously (in the case of some New Agers) they take seriously ACIM and other 20th century sources about Jesus. Why exactly do ACIM/other post-mortem sources are more reliable and veridical than Paul's, who also claimed to know and teach the Gospel that Jesus directly taught him? On what consistent methodological criterion can you justify such view?

It has nothing to do with science or scholarpship, it is pure WISHFUL THINKING.

  

Note: If the New Ager, in order to give credibility to ACIM and other sources about Jesus, skips this liberal methodological restriction and accepts as possible that a post-mortem Jesus provided his true teachings to some person, then Paul's claim cannot be distrusted on the liberal restriction anymore, since it is also possible that Jesus passed his true teachings directly to Paul exactly as Paul taught them! (In this case, the New Ager will be forced to used another double standard to favor ACIM/other sources over the techings of Paul, which again would expose the New Ager's inconsistency, prejudices and bias against the Christian view).

For example:  many liberals assume that the traditions which are singly attested in one Gospel alone are fictional (because they don't pass the criterion of multiple attestation). So, John's Gospel singly attested traditions are considered finctional and unreliable. But on parity of reasoning, all the original content and contributions (=content which is unique, and hence not multiply attested) of the ACIM and other sources, should be considered fictional too.

For example:  Many liberals assume that later, theologically evolved, properly Christian concepts and expressions about Jesus are fictional and not coming from Jesus at all (this is another reason why the 1st century John's Gospel is considered unreliable by such "liberals"). But on parity of reasoning, all the theologically evolved, high-Christological concepts and expressions (like references to the Son of God belonging to the Holy Trinity) that you find in 20th century ACIM and other sources, have to be considered fictional too and not coming from Jesus at all.

For example: Many liberals assume that traditions not found in "Q" are fictional or unreliable. On parity of reasoning, a very large portion of ACIM and other 20th century sources should be considered fictional or unreliable, since they present new information and details not found in Q (including spiritually and theologically charged interpretations about the atonement related to the resurrection and the crucifixion).

The so-called "facts" that some liberals pose about Jesus are consequence of a hypercritical methodology which exclude a lot of historically reliable information about Jesus in the Gospels, a methodology which, if applied consistently to the 20th century sources, would exclude such sources too for being fictional, extremely late and unreliable. This is where the egregious methodological double standard lies.

2)The above evidence suggests that New Agers sympathetic to the Jesus Seminar and other liberals don't agree with such liberals for methodological reasons, but exclusively for ideological ones: such New Agers like the conclusions of liberals about the historical Jesus and dislike the Christian, divine, exclusivistic high Christological view of Jesus. This psychological and ideological fact makes them prone and extremely biased to liberal scholarship (hence, the egregious double standards!).

This fact may be seen easily in this example:

-The evidence for  Jesus' exclusivistic self-perception, divine status and being the Son of God in a unique divine sense, passes several criteria of historical authenticity (including being in "Q"). However, absolutely not evidence exists in Q or any other 1st century historical sources, of Jesus being master of Yoga, Chi Kung, Tai Chi and so forth.

Shockingly, some New Agers are extremely skeptical of Jesus' claims of exclusivism, but at the same time they "suggest" that it is "plausible" that Jesus was a master of Yoga or Chi Kung... and even worst, that Jesus' mastering of these techniques produced the resurrection!

Again, wishful thinking overrides methodological consistency, objectivity and honest search for the truth.

This shows clearly that their notions of "plausibility" have nothing to do with historical evidence and methodological consistency, but with ideological prejudices about how Jesus should be (a prejudice which, essentially and a priori, precludes the possibility of Jesus being like the early Christians thought he was . (Obviously, this is an egregious bias against the Christian view of Jesus)

I find such inconsistency to be hypocrital, intellectually dishonest and unworthy of serious seekers after the truth.

The whole purpose of these people is trying to avoid the distinctive Christian view of Jesus for whatever means they can use, even if some of such distinctive aspects are supported by historical evidence which is better supported than the alternatives.

I'm extremely dissapointed of New Agers and other people like that.

They are not interested in the truth, but on reaching non-Christian conclusions which fit their emotional and ideological expectatives!. They're (anti-Christian) ideologues.

 3)In my opinion, being truthly "open-minded" means to following the evidence wherever it leads, including if it leads you to conclusions unpalatable to you or contrary to your worldview. If it leads you to atheistic materialism, then accept atheistic materialism. If it leads you to socialism, then accept socialism. It it leads you to the factuality of reincarnation, then accept reincarnation. If it leads you to the non-existence of Jesus, then accept the non-existence of Jesus, if it leads you the existence of paranormal phenomena, then accept them.

We're interested in the TRUTH, not on imposing our personal ideology.

But, on parity of reasoning,  if the historical evidence leads you to Jesus' exclusivistic claims (and claims implying divinity), then accept it. If the historical evidence leads you to Jesus' resurrection, then accept it.

Like it or not, you have to be sensible to the evidence, even to evidence contrary to your convictions.

I haven't seen this disposition to follow the evidence in New Age and paranormal circles. They're open-minded only regarding things to which they're initially sympathetic to. If you write about topics that they like (like afterlife research, debunking of pseudoskeptics, etc.) they will applaude you and you will be a kind of hero to some of them.

But regarding topics which they don't like or disagree with, they become angry pseudoskeptics themselves, arguing in uninformed form, providing arm-chair and ignorant criticisms which are not informed by standard methodological criteria and findings of scholarhip, making explicit (and sometimes being proud of) his own prejudices, being hostile, emotional, agressive, intolerant, insulting, intentionally misrepresenting what one is saying, uncharitably interpretating one's arguments, etc. (or using name calling or ad hominem labels or red herrings like "conservative", "fundamentalist", etc. as whether it were a rational objection or real argument which addresses the substantive points and is relevant for serious discussions about the historical Jesus).

Great example provided by people supposedly committed to a "spiritual" life and who constantly are talking of "love" as the universal principle of existence...

Someone said that "extreme tends to touch each other", and the pseudoskepticism that I've seen in some New Age and paranormal circles regarding the Christian view of Jesus is very similar to the pseudoskepticism of atheistic materialists about parapsychology. 

They use exactly the same methods, only varies the content of their ideas or beliefs.

Shame of them.

Summarizing: My current conclusion is that the consistent application of the historical method used by professional historians and the criteria of authenticity supports several of the distinctive Christological aspects of the life of the historical Jesus. This is a historical conclusion.

If one likes or dislikes that, is another problem which perhaps should be discussed in another forum... (of psychology, perhaps).

NA: My conclusions about these discussions are these:

-I agree with TS that the methodology used by the Jesus Seminar and other liberals is too restrictive and biased. 

I didn't see such problem before, because the liberal conclusions tended to cohere well with the teachings of a A Course in Miracles (ACIM), so this coherence with a material which I regard as true (namely, the ACIM) suggested to me that the liberal conclusions were plausible.

However, in these discussions, TS proved that the conclusions of liberals are mainly based on a inconsistent application of the criteria of authenticity and on atheistic assumptions which are gratuitous, in order to undermine or cast doubts on the credibility of the high-Christological traditions found in the Gospels. 

Even worst, I have to concede TS' point that if such liberal methodology is applied to ACIM (in the same way in which it is applied to the Gospels), then such liberal methodology would produce extremely skeptical conclusions about ACIM. Now, I can see this problem clearly.

This puts me in a dilemma: On one side I have ACIM, and on the other side I have the liberal methodology. Since the latter would see ACIM as unreliable,  and I think that ACIM is true, I'm forced to doubt and be more critical of the the liberal methodology. But if I do that, then I cannot dismiss anymore some of the traditions supporting the Christian view of Jesus (traditions which were dismissed by liberals precisely using the methodology which would destroy the ACIM too).

TS also mentioned other 20th century sources like ACIM which provide information about Jesus (put in Jesus' lips) which is contrary to ACIM.

Again, this puts me in a trouble: I haven't non-question begging reasons to distrust these sources on behalf of ACIM, and I openly concede this point.

However, ACIM has reached my heart, it has had a profound effect in me, has caused a whole change in my spiritual life and I still consider it to be true. If you want, you can think that my commitment to ACIM is based "on faith" (and as I'm consistent, I cannot attack anybody, including some Christians or Muslims, who disagree with me and hold their views "on faith" too).

I have to live with that subjectivism.

Liberal: I've already heard all the arguments of TS and NA, and I'm still unpersuaded by them. My conclusions, widely shared by contemporary scientific scholarpship, are:

-Jesus was basically a 1st century teller of stories and parables, and his purpose was basically changing people's minds. That's all, basically. In this regards, there is nothing special about him. A lot of people, before and after Jesus, have provided the same teachings about loving others, etc.

He was another "spiritual" teacher, like many others. There is nothing exclusive about him, he is one among a spectrum of spiritual teachers (all of who teach basically the same and not one is seen as superior than the others in a divine sense), whom my collegue Marcus Borg likes to call "Spirit-Persons".

-The extremely exalted, divine view of Jesus has nothing to do with the historical Jesus. It was a later view developed by his followers and put back into Jesus' lips. Jesus NEVER uttered such things.

-Hence, all the Christological traditions in the Gospels are all fictional and didn't come from Jesus's lips.

-Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God in any special sense.  By the way, phrase "Son of God" was used also of prophets, kings, etc. without implying nothing special.

-Jesus was a miracle-worker in the sense that people around him perceived him as someone who performed many miracles. But actually and literally, miracles don't exist and in this sense Jesus didn't produce them. Such miracles are fictions. In Jesus' time, a lot of other "miracle-workers" existed too, so Jesus is nothing special in this regards either.

-The stories about the empty tomb are likely to be fictional, since they're full of hopeless contradictions. The same applies to the resurrection narratives. All of these were invented for apologetical purposes of trying to convince others that Jesus was risen from the death. They're pure legends.

-The story of the resurrection were caused by hallucinations of the disciples. This hallucinations caused in them the impression that Jesus was somehow divine, and hence (with time passed) Jesus' human figure was exalted into God himself. Hence, when the Gospels were written decades after Jesus' death, this highly distorted, unhistorical divine view of Jesus was already in place and the Gospels were written from that biased, historically corrupted, theologically distorted perspective.

This is the origin of the "Christological" traditions in the Gospels.

In summary: Jesus was a mere man like you or me. Period. He simply stressed spiritual, psychological and moral teachings like all the other "spirit-persons". He didn't see himself as "divine" in any special sense.

All the "divene powers" added to him don't belong to him at all, and are the product of the religious enthusiasm of his followers, who exalted him into a divinity, systematically misunderstood his teachings, centring them around a person and largely falsified the historical facts on behalf of a religious agenda and propaganda.

These are some of the conclusions of modern, scientific scholarship about the historical Jesus.

Regarding ACIM and other 20th century sources, it is easier to think that Helen Schucman and the other authors invented all of that and then put it in Jesus' lips. If such new age teachings "cohere" or not with the scientific conclusions of scholarship don't make such sources reliable, since they are extremely late sources (incredibly later than John's Gospel) and above all it  hasn't been proved that such new age documents come from independent, reliable sources about Jesus, let alone from Jesus himself.

It is up to the readers to reach their own conclusions.

END OF THESE DIALOGUES