Fellow Christians, have the repercussions of the Jesus Seminar of 1985 worn off yet?

I believe the Jesus seminar people are still looking for the historical Jesus. I don't know much about the seminar first hand, only that they were a group of liberal theologians and philosophers who had a preconceived bias against the authenticity of the gospels and viewed them with historical skepticism. I guess they didn't read Sir William Ramsey, Walter Albright (archaeologists) or Simon Greenleaf (dean of law dept at Harvard) or FF Bruce (The New Testament Documents: are they reliable?) showing how reliable, authentic,trustworthy the New Testament gospels are. Actually the fact the the 4 gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) do not write the exact the same thing proves that collusion did not take place and is believable. If 4 people saw a car smash into another car, run over a fire hydrant, turn on its side, have firetrucks and policeman rush onto the scene and have men, women, and children involved, should I expect to have 4 people write the exact same description of the order of events, the number of people, firemen, and policemen, the color of the cars, how the car was turned on its side. If one person mentioned 2 children and one of the other witnesses mentioned only one, does that mean there is an inherent contradicition? No, one person mentioned one to fit what he or she saw, and the other mentioned 2 because that is what he or she saw and both were eyewitnesses. However, of one said there was one and only one child involved and someone else said there was two then there would be a contradiction. The gospels do not do that.

The Bible says that "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" you received our word as it is in truth the word of God" II Thessalonians 2:13. Over 3000 times does the bible say, "the word of the Lord or the word of God." God is the Author of Scripture using a human instrument, the humans vocabulary, personality, style, etc. why is that so unreasonable?

So you didn't really read what they had to say... otherwise you would have at least posted points they made and why you thought it was wrong. And you obviously don't understand what they were saying... the point is more like, if you found out a doctrine taught in mainstream is wrong, would you stop following it? Or would you continue because that's what is expected of you out of the mainstream?

Of course, seeing that you really didn't post any points, I'm not sure how you can say they are nuts. "trying to change doctrine" is something all christian denoms do at one point or another... yet, I don't see many fussing this bad over them. Probably because they only know what they've been told about and don't really understand it.

"Heathen, why would I waste space here posting nonsense? What they did was wrong, period. Who are they to say that the teaching's of Paul were primitive? God wrote the Bible........not man"

You post the complaint but not WHY... which only proves you didn't read what they said... you just listened to what other people told you about them.

And nowhere does it say God wrote the Bible.......... Man wrote it... otherwise your god doesn't know which way is up, considering there's 2 genesis stories, 2 stories for noahs ark.... 3 different versions of the 10 commandments... the 4 gospels which are supposedly "eyewitness" accounts yet can't even get Jesus's Last Words straight....

The only thing you will even find in the Bible that states "god wrote" is for the 1st set of the 10 commandments - which Moses destroyed in anger when he saw the others worshipping a golden calf.

Inspired does not mean he wrote it personally and it doesn't mean a literal dictation either.

From a conservative American Evangelical point of view, I can see how one might see the Jesus Seminar as nonsensical, since its conclusions are so far from the foundations of faith that NA Evangelicals embrace.

A systematic theologian mentor of mine proposed some interesting perspective on this, that I thought would be interesting to share.

The context of the Jesus Seminar was that of academics within an environment of ultra-liberal skepticism and suspicion of origin and authorship of the Scriptures (Google "Hermeneutic of Suspicion" for some more info). In their environment, the Scriptures were considered nothing more than hegemonic constructions to justify the establishment of a Jewish state at the expense of peoples that were already there.

So, the JS's acknowledgement of the primitive-ness of Paul's writings is a nod towards the skepticism prevelant within their environment.

Given that all of Scripture had been rejected within the environment that the JS took shape, the fact that they used methods that were respected by that environment to garner support for a portion of the Scriptures can actually be looked at as - *gasps*- evangelical, in the sense that they were seeking to affirm Scripture as much a possible within their context.

So, from one more conservative end this might seem like nonsense, but from another perspective this could be seen as reaching out.

I'm unsure of the "repercussions" that you allude to. But, if you are referring to the repercussions of secularism, then I would say that the JS is a response to and symptom of increased secularization and God allowing Himself to be moved to the sides, as it seeks a meta-narrative to give life meaning.

I don't know about it. I know we shouldnt change the Bible. Not even re translating it into modern english. I read several different translations and assure you. the truth gets lost in translation. Thats why they compared recently the kjv to the original greek text. it is the most accurate and powerful. God bless you, I hope I helped.

i could no longer have positioned it extra effective myself!!! you're so thoroughly splendid that that's unhappy. I incredibly have been puttering around right here on R&S for extremely a whilst now, and that i think of my hair is permantly fried. i incredibly have not contributed plenty via fact of all the hateful language - and varied that has been from "Christians". i'm so happy that there are others who believe me. We, as believers, could gain that if Jesus have been right here in the flesh (lower back), that the very people who we, as "Christians", are condemning via our hateful language may be the very people who he might decide directly to be with, and extra importantly, to love. I desire extra human beings could desire to work out that. thank you for being one. On behalf of Christians accessible who are not that way, i choose to make an apology to the non-believers for the dislike that has been despatched your way. It would not come from all believers.

Mostly, you really don't hear about it all that much anymore. I think the DaVinci Code has more influence at the moment (and not much more). Just my personal perspective, someone more involved in apologetics might disagree.

If you had been a catholic when you were about 10 or 11 some priest might have saved you. for later.

There is always someone whistling down the corridor, with unproved theories.