NA: I'd like to say that I've always believed in Jesus' resurrection. In part, this is the reason why I think the A Course in Miracles (ACIM) is true, because this material was trasmitted by the risen Jesus himself.
TS: But that doesn't make ACIM to be true. Other 20th century sources about Jesus also claim to come from him, and provide information which contradicts ACIM, as discussed in previous dialogues.
NA: What I mean is that if Jesus' resurrection happened, the possibility of ACIM being true is better grounded, since Jesus is alive!.
TS: But that doesn't make ACIM to be true. Other 20th century sources about Jesus also claim to come from him, and provide information which contradicts ACIM, as discussed in previous dialogues.
NA: What I mean is that if Jesus' resurrection happened, the possibility of ACIM being true is better grounded, since Jesus is alive!.
TS: I see. But I want to clarify that in our previous conversation, my liberal friend and I weren't debating about the resurrection, but only about the empty tomb. This fact, itself, is not miraculous and its only connection with the resurrection is that it is part of the evidence for the resurrection (that is, if the resurrection happened, then an empty tomb had to be left).
NA: I understand. I only want to express my opinion that I'm sympathetic to the historicity of the resurrection, although I'm not a Christian.
Before these helpful dialogues, I tended to agree with liberals about their conclusions regarding Jesus' teachings, but disagreed with them regarding their views on the resurrection. I assumed that they were very objective regarding Jesus' teachings, but were less objective regarding the resurrection...
TS: I see. And you're now in position to see that such assumption is very superficial and it is based on a deeper misunderstanding of liberal scholarpship and its obvious anti-Christian hostility and philosophical presuppositions against theism.
It is simply false that liberals are "objective" regarding Jesus' teachings, but suddenly the become "subjective" when it comes to the resurrection. This is a simplistic and false understanding of the problem. This becomes evident when you realize that they use almost exactly the same methodology to "investigate" both the Jesus' teachings and the resurrection, namely, the "presumption of invention by the early Christians" regarding Christological traditions and misuse of the criteria of authenticity.
The only difference with the resurrection is that, since it is a miracle, in this case the liberal metaphysics (= naturalism, atheism) becomes dramatically evident and sometimes explicit. But this naturalistic metaphysics can be seen in the liberal approach to all the aspects of the study of the Historical Jesus, including the dating of the Gospels! (as shown in dialogue 1).
So, it is simply false that liberals are objective regarding Jesus' teachings, but subjective regarding the resurrection.
NA: Perhaps. In any case, I thought it was the case.
TS: If you allow me a psychological explanation of why you thought it was the case...
NA: Go ahead.
TS: You thought liberals were "objective" regarding Jesus' teachings because you already agreed in advance with a large portion of their anti-Christian approach and conclusions!
You wanted to hear that the Christian view of Jesus is false and this makes you prone and sympathetic to the liberal scholars who hold exactly such position and tells you what is palatable for you.
You wanted to hear that the early Church consciously or unconsciously seriously corrupted Jesus' teachings, so you could believe that Jesus was not like the one portrayed in the Gospels.
You don't like a Christian view of God, you don't like Jesus' exclusivistic self-perception, you don't like Jesus' references to hell, you prefer a God which is pure love but not a God who applies spiritual justice, etc.
You strongly dislike such Christian theology, and are desperately (perhaps unconsciously) seeking alternative interpretations which make you to feel "good" and "happy"!
What motivates you is not the evidence per se, but a certain sort of Jesus view which fits better with your ideological sensibilities and emotinal framework... and if such view comes from some scholars, you can "rationalize" your position into an supposedly objective, academically serious one and to claim that "your" preferred view is supported by "scholarship".
NA: Uhmmm I'm not sure you're right.
TS: Don't try to reply to me in this moment (because perhaps your pride interferes with a proper assesment of what I'm saying), just think about it carefully and honestly...
NA: Ok.
TA: I've shown to you in these dialogues that your assumption of "liberal objectivity" is not the case. Many of the liberal "conclusions" and "historical facts" are actually assumptions, to which there is absolutely no evidence at all (and in fact, they are question-begging assumptions against the Christian view).
For example, the post 70 AD dating of the Gospels is largely based on the materialistic assumption that Jesus didn't predict the future. Reject this question-begging assumption, and their main argument for the post 70 AD Gospels dating falls as ripe fruit. (By the way, most liberals try to push the dating of the Gospels as much as they can from Jesus' life, in order to cast doubts on the historical reliability of the documents, suggest legendary developments and therefore undermine the Christological traditions contained there).
No positive evidence has ever been presented by any liberal scholar supporting the claim that Jesus didn't have predictive powers.
The denial that Jesus was born in Bethelhem is largely based on the assumption that the Church created such tradition to make it fit the Old Testament prediction about the Messiah, despite of contrary evidence based on the criterion of mutiple attestation of the only two available birth narratives in the Gospels which supports Jesus' birth in Bethelhem.
The liberal claim that the early Christians thought of Jesus' resurrected body in terms of an "immaterial body" is contrary to the first century Jewish conception of the resurrection, to all the evidence of the Gospels and to the most plausible interpretation (defended by most Pauline scholars) of Paul's teaching about the nature of the resurrection body.
So, when a liberal scholar like Marcus Borg says "He [Paul] explicitly denies that it is a physical body; instead, it is a spiritual body" (Will the real Jesus please stand up? p. 123), Borg is simply telling to his readers a studied falsehood (based on an implausible interpretation) and preaching to the liberal chorus, an interpretation which is rejected by the overwhelming majority of Pauline commentators and which he cannot support with any sound evidence, which in passing testifies to Borg's prejudices and lack of insights. (By the way, Paul's explicit contrast is not at all between a "physical" body and a "spiritual" one, but between a "natural" body and a "spiritual" one, but Borg astutely misrepresents this).
As a rule, liberals try to capitalize on the smallest room or interpretative hole in order to reach anti-Christian conclusions which are palatable to them (it reminds me of James Randi trying to capitalize on the smallest hole of a parapsychological experiment in order to conclude that the whole experiment is worthless).
Hardly, you can call this an exercise in "scholarly objectivity".
NA: But one could say the same regarding conservatives in favour of the Christian view.
TS: So what? The prejudices of conservatives don't justify the prejudices of the liberals.
Liberals are responsible of their own prejudices and assumptions and how they affect their scholarly work, and we cannot justify this with the childish red herring and tu quoque fallacy of "but you conservatives also do it"!
Let's be serious, adult and mature. Don't justify your mistakes and flaws appealing to other people's flaws. Otherwise, you will always be a mediocre person who never learn from your mistakes nor evolve.
In any case, no one is defending "conservatives" in these dialogues. I'm speaking exclusively by MYSELF.
All of my arguments here are based on historical evidence and reasoning which even an agnostic could understand and follow.
NA: I understand.
TS: I'd like to know the opinion of our liberal friend.
Liberal: Well, I disagree with almost everything you have said.
I think the approach of both of you is too unscientific, leaving room for supernatural or paranormal fantasies (like Jesus' fantastic "predictive" powers) or for Jesus' communication of his "true teachings" to a 20th century psychologist like Helen Schucman.
It easier to think that Jesus was a mere man like you and me, and hence the claims of predictions were inventions of the Chruch after Jesus' figure was exalted.
And regarding Schucman, it is easier to think that she invented entirely the ACIM.
TS: It could be a surprise to you to discover that I AGREE with part of your argument.
One of main claims that I've made in these dialogues is that if we use the same liberal methodology to study the ACIM, then a large portion of it would have to be considered false and fictional.
For example, liberals tend to think that Jesus' postmortem (=after the resurrection) communications in the Gospels are all fictional, because a dead man cannot communicate anything. For liberals, these traditions are actually legends.
But then, by parity of reasoning, using the same criterion, we would have to conclude that the TOTALITY of ACIM is false, since it was given entirely 19th centuries after Jesus' death!
Likewise, if you apply the criterion of multiple attestation to ACIM like liberals do to the Christian sources, then all the original material contained in ACIM have to be considered an invention of Helen Schucman.
Moreover, if you apply the same liberal criterion of "later theological evolution" to distrust John's Gospel to ACIM, then all the ACIM's explicit references and theologically evolved concepts like the Son of God, the Holy Trinity, and the Resurrection, written in the 20th century, would have to be considered fictional.
Liberal: I agree.
NA: I agree
TS: I think, for once, we have reached an agreement and hence some advance in the discussion!
Our disagreement is about the conclusions. Liberal will tend (if consistent with his own methodology) to deny the authenticity of ACIM. NA will tend (if consistent) to distrust the liberal methodology, since NA thinks ACIM is true.
And myself will distrust BOTH the liberal methodology and ACIM, the former because it is extremely restrictive and biased, and the latter because it is extremely, incredibly late, and there is absolutely no evidence supporting his authenticity and putative Jesus' authorship.
My original purpose today was to discuss the other objections of my liberal friend to the empty tomb, but NA deflected the discussion about other interesting matters which I was tempted to address... I promise in the next dialogue we'll come back to the discussion of the empty tomb.
0 comments:
Post a Comment