In order to uncover unknown information from an ancient civilization, archeologists usually do extensive digging and research in a specified area; however, to uncover truths about Jesus Christ, there was no removal of dirt, as the world 's most sold book was dug into. Although Christianity continues to be the most popular religion, scholars came together in a Seminar, seeking to find the provable truth, which leads to unpopular conclusions. Throughout the article entitled, The Gospel Truth? by David Van Biema, the question of Jesus and the two lenses through which we see him, faith and history, are explored, conclusions are made, and reactions are instant. Instead of believing by faith and tradition, the Jesus Seminar is an attempt to identify
…show more content…
Following this up, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are deemed unreliable, and the reputable nature of the Nativity, the Resurrection, the Sermon on the Mount and many other cases are immediately thrown out as unverifiable. On the matter of Judas Iscariot, some people felt the evidence proves he is guilty, some felt he did it with the Apostles as accomplices, while others felt it was simply a literary device. In consensus, the 50 panelists agreed that is was highly unlikely that he kissed his master and betrayed him to the authorities to be crucified for a mere 30 pieces of silver. I do not like this argument because they too easily assume something is false if it is not easily verified by an outside source. Also, the people are valuing their own opinions too highly, and seem to have underscoring motivations to determine the illegitimacy of the Bible. In reply to Judas Iscariot, I believe the 30 pieces of silver are irrelevant because of different temptations he must have been facing. Overall, their claims of unreliability are too rushed, and their expectations of finding evidence to support biblical claims are too high in relation to how long ago these events …show more content…
In reaction to the bold statements, many became uncomfortable and began to share their thoughts. Outraged by the supposed findings, Luke Timothy Johnson publicized his reaction again. "People have no idea how fraudulent people who claim to be scholars can be," said Johnson in an effort to discredit their work. He considers the findings to be dangerous because "Americans generally have an abysmal level of knowledge of the Bible. In this world of mass ignorance, to have headlines proclaim that this or that fact about [Jesus] has been declared untrue by supposedly scientific inquiry has the effect of the gospel. There is no basis on which most people can counter these authoritative-sounding statements." Additionally, he finds the Seminar wildly unrepresentative of scholarly consensus on the New Testament, and accuses the group of being "self-selected" not on grounds of quality of scholarship, but on prior agreements on a goal to discover a Jesus devoid of anything "mythical" or concerned with the actual possibility of a world to come. Even though it is impossible to prove any of the Gospels false, so little of it can be historically proved to be true. Johnson also maintains that the Resurrection is an ongoing miracle, a "transforming, transcendent personal power" that moves by way of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and among the communities of believers. "Christianity has never been
Following this up, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are deemed unreliable, and the reputable nature of the Nativity, the Resurrection, the Sermon on the Mount and many other cases are immediately thrown out as unverifiable. On the matter of Judas Iscariot, some people felt the evidence proves he is guilty, some felt he did it with the Apostles as accomplices, while others felt it was simply a literary device. In consensus, the 50 panelists agreed that is was highly unlikely that he kissed his master and betrayed him to the authorities to be crucified for a mere 30 pieces of silver. I do not like this argument because they too easily assume something is false if it is not easily verified by an outside source. Also, the people are valuing their own opinions too highly, and seem to have underscoring motivations to determine the illegitimacy of the Bible. In reply to Judas Iscariot, I believe the 30 pieces of silver are irrelevant because of different temptations he must have been facing. Overall, their claims of unreliability are too rushed, and their expectations of finding evidence to support biblical claims are too high in relation to how long ago these events …show more content…
In reaction to the bold statements, many became uncomfortable and began to share their thoughts. Outraged by the supposed findings, Luke Timothy Johnson publicized his reaction again. "People have no idea how fraudulent people who claim to be scholars can be," said Johnson in an effort to discredit their work. He considers the findings to be dangerous because "Americans generally have an abysmal level of knowledge of the Bible. In this world of mass ignorance, to have headlines proclaim that this or that fact about [Jesus] has been declared untrue by supposedly scientific inquiry has the effect of the gospel. There is no basis on which most people can counter these authoritative-sounding statements." Additionally, he finds the Seminar wildly unrepresentative of scholarly consensus on the New Testament, and accuses the group of being "self-selected" not on grounds of quality of scholarship, but on prior agreements on a goal to discover a Jesus devoid of anything "mythical" or concerned with the actual possibility of a world to come. Even though it is impossible to prove any of the Gospels false, so little of it can be historically proved to be true. Johnson also maintains that the Resurrection is an ongoing miracle, a "transforming, transcendent personal power" that moves by way of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and among the communities of believers. "Christianity has never been