In today's dialogue, TS and NA will discuss about New Age sources about the Jesus like ACIM, The Urantia Book, the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus.
TS: In the lastest dialogue, we discuss about the some of the criteria of authenticity employed in historical Jesus studies.
NA: Right.
TS: I'd like summarize the main aspects of my position discussed so far:
Liberal scholarship tend to make use of the criteria of authenticity both positively AND negatively, depending on which conclusions they find to fit better with its naturalistic worldview or its prejudices against the Christian view of Jesus.
More specificically: In general (and we can find a spectrum among liberals which would qualify this claim), the liberal approach is extremely biased in the direction of skepticism or even denialism of the distinctive, Christian-Christological aspects of the historical Jesus, in particular his claims of exclusivism, his teaching about his special condition as the Son of God and as the only door to enter God's kingdom and reach the Father and (obviously) his physical resurrection.
As consequence, the liberal portrait (or portraits, since there are several) only accept these purely "human" aspects of the historical Jesus which, while belonging also to the Christian view are not distinctive of it, like his claims of loving others, the generic recognition that Jesus' teaching was centered around God's kingdom, his messianic claims (the latter is disputed by several liberals), etc.
Methodologically, what is even worst is this: The prejudice in liberal scholarship against the Christological traditions about Jesus is so strongly intense and egregious that even if a tradition supporting the Christian view passes some criteria of authenticity, many liberals scholars won't accept it (e.g. The birth narratives about Jesus which pass the criterion of multiple attestation). In this case, the liberal preconceptions have overriding force over the criteria.
More egregiously, in New Age circles, you find sympathetic views about the liberal portraits of Jesus (because they New Age is a collection and mixture of doctrines, some of which are mutually inconsistent) not realizing that such liberal portraits of Jesus are based on a hypercritical methodology which, if applied to the New Age sources about Jesus, would support skeptical conclusions about such sources.
For example, if we apply the criteria of authenticity in the negative and hypercritical fashion as liberals do to examine the earliest Christian sources to later (extremely later) sources like A Course in Miracles (ACIM), we would have to conclude that many of the ACIM's doctrines are deceptive, false and fictional.
I think this point was discussed in our previous conversation and you agreed for most part with it.
NA: Right.
TS: In this conversation, I'd like to expand this conclusion in the context of other New Age sources about Jesus, because this point cannot be stressed enough.
Let's assume the hyper-critical stance of liberal scholars (e.g. of the extremely skeptical Jesus Seminar) and apply it to ACIM. What would you find?
For example, let's assume that liberals are correct in assuming that the evolution of theological ideas about Jesus implies their falsehood or unreliability.
Given this liberal assumption, all the teachings and doctrines in ACIM which make reference to Christ and Son of God in a theological context (and are, therefore, of a highly evolved theological nature) have to be reputed to be false, fictional and as evidence which they were put on Jesus' lips by Helen Schumman.
For example in ACIM one can read:
The Son of God is part of the Holy Trinity, but the Trinity Itself is One. There is no confusion within Its Levels, because They are of one Mind and one Will. This single purpose creates perfect integration and establishes the peace of God. Yet this vision can be perceived only by the truly innocent
Note carefully that the theologically-charged phrase "Holy Trinity" mentioned in ACIM is never mentioned by Jesus in the earliest Christian sources (It is a posteriori theological doctrine developed, after reflection, by Christian theologians to make sense of Jesus' reference to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit).
NA: But Jesus seems to imply such trinity, for example in Matthew 18: 19-20:
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.
TS: This is besides the point. I'm not making the theological point here about whether the trinity is true or false. I'm interested in the USE of the phrase "holy trinity".
We have no historical evidence in the earliest sources that Jesus used the phrase "Holy Trinity" (even if he referred to it with other words). The available evidence shows that the phrase "Holy Trinity" was a later theological construction, created by Christian theologians, after reflection about Jesus' teachings about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, like the one mentioned in Matthew.
NA: I understand.
TS: My point is that ACIM is using a terminology which implies a LATER conceptual development of Christian theology to make sense of Jesus' teachings.
Moreover, ACIM's teaching includes reference to the MEANING and NATURE of the holy trinity, when says that the trinity is "one", because it is one regarding "Mind" and "Will". So, ACIM doesn't include just a theologically charged phrase, but that explains its theological meaning too (something which Jesus himself didn't do in the earliest Christian sources).
Having the liberal prejudice in mind that a theological development implies the falsehood of such development, I ask you:
Is not the above teaching in ACIM an obvious THEOLOGICAL development of the material that we find in the Gospels and of the later theologically constructed doctrine of trinity?
Is not such theological development a later reinterpretation of the Christian doctrine of trinity?
NA: Well, yes... it seems to be the case.
TS: But then consistency demands that we consider the ACIM's evolved and original reinterpretation about the trinity to be false and fictional and as strong evidence that Helen Schumman put on Jesus' lips something which doesn't come from Jesus at all.
NA: Correct.
TS: Would you agree that such teaching in ACIM is false and fictional just because liberals think that the theological evolution of an idea about Jesus makes it false and not coming from Jesus, and hence any putative use by Jesus of such theologically charged words implies their non-historicity?
NA: Obviously not. The liberal approach seems to make a huge assumption here, and I don't see any reason to believe that such assumption is true.
The fact that ACIM prodvides highly advanced and evolved teachings about theological matters (like the "Holy Trinity" and its meaning) doesn't make them false or fictional or not coming from Jesus.
TS: Exactly, but then why should us think that such liberal assumption is right regarding the Christian sources? Why exactly the evolution of theological ideas about Jesus in the direction of a Christian understanding of him, make it unreliable and fictional?
Again, it is obvious that a double standard is operative here in order to destroy the credibility of the Christian sources.
NA: I have to agree with you in this case.
TS: Just think about it: Imagine that the above ACIM's reference about the "Holy Trinity" (and the Son of God belonging to it and its theological meaning) were found in the Gospel of John, or even in Mark. Do you think most liberals would accept it as historical, that is, as a true utterance and teaching of Jesus?
Surely many liberals would cry "foul" and argue that they were put into Jesus' lips by the early Church after the concept of holy trinity was theologically evolved. (If liberals are hostile to Jesus claiming to be the Son of God, can you imagine what such liberals would say about a tradition in which Jesus claimed and explained the doctrine of the trinity and how the Son of God is part of it?)
But if we agree with liberals about such hypercritical methodology, then consistency demands that we see the above ACIM's teaching about the "Holy Trinity" as a theological evolution and hence a fictional narrative put into Jesus' lips (in this case by Helen Schucman).
We cannot be so hypocrital, biased and pseudo-scientific as to agree with liberals when they use their hypercritical methodology regarding the Christian sources and doctrines taught by Jesus, and at the same time to accept uncritically, or with less critical eye, the several highly evolved THEOLOGICAL doctrines and teachings in ACIM, which don't pass either the liberal hypercritical methodology.
This is a definitive and dramatic proof that a double standard is being deceptively operative in the evaluation of the evidence.
NA: I must admit you have got a point.
TS: I only can explain such double standard as a consequence of wishful thinking, which in turn is a consequence of strong hostility to the Christian view of Jesus and strong intellectual prejudice against the Gospels.
NA: Perhaps, who knows. My preference for ACIM is because I find it spiritually more satisfying than the spirituality found in the Gospels.
TS: I see, and I think I've explained to you why I consider that finding something "more satisfying" is not guide to the truth. Perhaps the truth about spiritual matters is unpalatable or disguisting or even scary. Spiritual truths don't have to be "appealing" or "satisfying" to us in order to be true.
I don't understand why, when it comes to spiritual matters, everyone becomes a subjectivist who test truth based on its "palatability". In any other area, we assess informations based on the evidence and epistemic credentials, not on if such informations agree with our desires or expectatives.
No astronomer would deny that a comet is going to strike the Earth just because such information is scary to him. No patient would deny a proven dignostic of cancer simply because such information will make him to strongly fear and eventually suffer death.
But when it comes to spiritual matters, evidence seems to be secondary and the main test of spiritual claims is how they make us to feel.
I simply cannot understand that.
The double standard mentioned above is an intellectual consequence of this wrong emotional approach.
This is why, with due respect to you, I'm strongly dissapointed with the New Age community and also with a large part of the paranormal community. I don't respect them anymore (with some exceptions, of course), I think many of them are pseudo-intellectuals and self-deluded people, more interested in protect their worldview and beliefs than in seeking the truth, wherever it could lead them.
NA: I see, but I don't agree with you on this. I think they simply have a different perspective on these matters.
TS: And I agree this is the case. This is why, regarding the historical Jesus, I think we have to agree to disagree. We have wholly different ways to evaluate the evidence and to understand what "consistency" means.
NA: Maybe.
TS: Just curious, what do you think of other souces in the New Age world claiming to come from Jesus, or at least, to provide his true teachings?
NA: I only know in deep ACIM, I cannot say too much about other sources. But provided they confirm what we read in ACIM, I'd be sympathetic to them.
TS: Do you realize that what you are saying is that provided an information in ACIM is multiply attested in the other independent paranormal sources, you would accept them?
NA (laughing): Yes! I think I'm beginning to master the jargon of historical Jesus studies!
TS: I think so!.
Anyway, the problem is that some of these sources provide information of or about Jesus which contradicts ACIM's teachings.
NA: Give me an example.
TS: I could give you 100 examples, but let's mention this one.
In ACIM you can read:
The Bible says, 'Ask in the Name of Jesus Christ.' Is this merely an appeal to magic? A name does not heal, nor does an invocation call forth any special power. What does it mean to call on Jesus Christ? What does calling on his Name confer? Why is the appeal to him part of healing?"
The teaching here in ACIM seems to be that asking something in the name of Jesus is wrong and misguided, since a "name" by itself has not "healing" effect. It confers nothing nor provides any special power at all.
In this point, the ACIM provides a straighforward contradiction of the biblical teaching. Am I interpreting it correctly?
NA: Yes. Simply invoking a name is, by itself, nothing. It has no effect.
TS: However, in the highly respected (in the New Age community) Urantia Book, which is a revelation supposedly coming from advanced extraterrestial beings who are seasoned experts in the life of Jesus, we can read Jesus himself claiming:
I have come forth from the Father; if, therefore, you are ever in doubt as to what you would ask of the Father, ask in my name, and I will present your petition in accordance with your real needs and desires and in accordance with my Father's will.
Provided the Urantia Book is an independent source, it provides multiple attestation of the tradition found in the first century John's Gospel in John 16: 23-24:
Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you. 24 Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.
More independent attestation (provided it is another independent source) is found in the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ (a 20th century source which, like ACIM, was gotten by Levi H. Dowling from a paranormal source, namely the so-called Akashic Records), we read:
And in my name, through Christ, you may petition God and he will grant you your request. (chapter 161, 28)
Here is a straightforward contradiction between the Urantia Book and the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus (on one side) and ACIM regarding the efficacy of asking something (e.g. an emotional "healing") in the name of Jesus. Moreover, while the ACIM denies the teaching in John's Gospels, the Urantia Book and the Aquariam Gospels confirms it.
Note, by the way, that if we use the criteria of multiple attestation as a necessary condition of historicity (as John Dominic Crossan and other liberal scholars like to do), then we have reason to think that the above tradition in John, the Aquarian Gospels and the Urantia Book is historical, but the ACIM's teaching which is singly attested (and in addition denies such multiply attested tradition) has to be considered false and fictional.
What do you think of it?
NA: After our conversation, I don't give credibility anymore to such liberal way of applying the criteria of authenticity. They would destroy a large portion of the ACIM's doctrines and teachings, which I'm convinced are the true teachings of Jesus.
So I don't need to answer this question.
TS: But certainly you need. Because, as New Ager, if you cannot exclude that the risen Jesus was channeled by Helen Schumman, you cannot discard either that Jesus passed his teachings and doctrines to other 20th century paranormal sources too.
NA: But these sources that you're mentioning contradict what Jesus taught in ACIM, and hence they're not credible (at least regarding these particular teachings).
TS: But you're assuming that what's right is the teaching in ACIM, not the teachings in the other sources. Perhaps it is the reserve: What is false is the teaching in ACIM, and not in the multiply attested (and confirmatory of the first century Gospel of John) teachings in these other sources.
NA: As I said to you, I think the ACIM provides the true teachings of Jesus. It doesn't mean to be uncritical regarding this source, but such criticism has to be applied to the other sources too.
TS (realizing that his NA friend seems to be trapped in a kind of inconsistency and wishful thinking): I think we should discuss this topic in more detail in other moment.
Even though you would disagree with me, I don't trust in any of these extremely late, 20th century paranormal sources about Jesus.
I don't deny the possibility that the risen Jesus passed his teachings to 20th sources (a possibility denied by liberals, because they don't accept the resurrection), but such possibility exists TOO for ALL the sources mentioned above, not just to ACIM. Moreover, given that they're contradictory regarding basic aspects of Jesus' teachings (e.g. asking in his name) , they cannot be true altogether.
NA: I see your point, but I still think ACIM is more reliable.
TS: Thanks for this conversation, which I consider an advance in the critical exploration of these complex matters.
We will return to this questions in future dialogues, hoping that our liberal friend will join us in the discussion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment