A modcon theologian takes on the Jesus Seminar

Gavin Rumney of Otagosh blog fame has seen my clip from Robert Morey and let’s say he really hit the roof.  I just want to kindly assure that to Gavin that I have no plans of being a 5-point Calvinist. The idea of God predestining both the saved and the lost, frankly is repulsive to me. Let me make perfectly clear, that I believe the verse from 2 Peter 3:9 combats the concept of double predestination: From the Internation Version it states,”The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some people understand slowness, but is being patient with you. He does not want anyone to perish, but wants everyone to repent.”  But this is neither here nor there. This post is introduce you to a fellow Canadian scholar, based in Halifax, Nova Scotia by the name of Craig A.Evans which on this video clip is promoting one of his recent books, Fabricating Jesus which debunks the Jesus Seminar in which  Paul Verhoeven (director of RoboCop fame) is a part of. I am glad I got this book again from the library. I think I am going to get my own copy from amazon. I hope this is in some way a consolation prize for Gavin.  Gavin being in the pale of Liberal Theology and Professor Evans in the pale of moderate conservative theology in Christianity, I am sure that Gavin will be at least less objectionable to Evans than he is to Robert Morey. More importantly, I think Gavin will say Evans truly makes him think, whereas Morey just riles him. Watch the clip and form your own conclusions.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “A modcon theologian takes on the Jesus Seminar

  1. Nah, didn’t hit the roof, just moved into a corner of the room and sobbed quietly 😉

    As for Evans, well, okay, he’s a huge improvement on Morey – but then so is Bugs Bunny. Evans makes some valid points on the vid-clip, but I think he’s shadow boxing with a straw man.

  2. Thanks for the book suggestion, FT. I’ll give it a look see.
    I have gotten as far as the first review on Amazon, and a certain paragraph struck me. C. Price says this in their Jan 8, 2007 comment:

    “Evans begins by discussing his own religious background and how it was affected by the critical study of the New Testament and historical Jesus. He uses this personal reflection to try and understand why some respected scholars have embraced such far-fetched theories. [Here is where it really began to hit home with me.] One of his explanations is that some of these scholars came from strict, fundamentalist backgrounds. When exposed to the critical studies, they were not flexible enough to accomodate the new information in their existing religious mind set. As a result, their faith was shattered instead of modified. They see little middle ground betweeen strict fundamentalism and utter rejection of traditional positions.”

    I find that same sort of thing everywhere I look in the former Armstrongists. There are few who have come to grace, but many who have taken “far-fetched” views. I often feel the extreme fundamentalism taught in Armstrongism is to blame. I was just thinking about that this morning, in fact.
    It appears to me that the underlying principles taught in “mainstream” Christianity for the past 2,000 years are the correct ones, but these are also the things condemned the most voraciously by Armstrongism. When a person sees the failure of Armstrongism, the mainstream is already not an option since they were conditioned for years to believe they had proven that option to be false (however, after almost 2 years of study I am personally astounded at how much of that “proof” turns out to be bald-faced lies and half-truths). With the mainstream option tragically precluded, what other option is there besides the “far-fetched”? It makes the notion that “ideas have consequences” appear to be an understatement.
    I think about this kind of thing a lot when I ask why I was caught up in Armstrongism. So that’s why I found this C. Price person’s comment so relevant to me.

    I think I’ll be reading this book.

  3. My conclusion is that actually no human system of religion can be correct. Assuming the correctness of Romans 8:7, that the carnal, or natural mind, is enmity against God and cannot be subject to God, the logical result would have to be many different versions of God or even of Christ.

    In fact, that is exactly the first warning Jesus allegedly gave his disciples in Matthew 24.
    But if the natural mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to God’s laws, what would you choose to avoid deception?

    In fact you couldn;t make a correct choice and prove it, so the only logical decisin available is to choose no religion, which is what we read Jesus saying in Matthew 24:23.

    This provides a framework by which we may judge the truthfulness of other NT scriptures.

    If the natural mind is enmity against God, then obviously we can’t make any decisin that would demonstrate any closer relationship than any other person, and that’s what Pal tells us in Romans 9:16-22.

    He further closes off any possibility of choice with Romans 8:29-30.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s