Conservative Bible Project
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
GlorytoGod
There is a River
- Messages
- 943
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
not to keen on that bit
They also are diddling with the text in general, deleting "liberal" portions of Scripture, altogether, such as the woman taken in adultery--yes, these alleged "Christians" wish to delete "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Sancho
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Serendipitously, just recently I was thinking that those words sound to me like some of the most genuinely Christ-like words in the New Testament.
Namaste Sancho,
IMO you are exactly right....so do we retain a story, a parable as included despite we know it being an addition?
I love the story...but also am attached to many other stories included....could it be proof that historical accuracy is not required, but the myth also has power we should embrace as it touches are heart and explains a powerful concept?
Paladin
Purchased Bewilderment
Perception IS bias.
Do they belong out? Were they later additions?
NiceCupOfTea
Pathetic earthlings
- Messages
- 1,242
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
I hate to break to them, but the Lord Jesus Christ was not a white American protestant republican. They are so critical about John 8, but they maintain the authorship of Mark, Matthew, John and Luke when it comes to the gospels? Do they consider the deutero-Pauline epistles? I thought not, they are just removing what they are not comfortable with and use methods selectively to say the least.
The whole project is a great heresy.
The whole project is a great heresy.
What do you think of the work of the Jesus Seminar in this regard?
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
What about perspective? Is that bias? I think of perspective as an understanding that one's own perception is only one of many possible perceptions.
Judging from the experience I have from reading some selected articles by John Dominic Crossan and Stephen J. Patterson (fun fact: my avatar is on the cover of that book
) I have mixed feelings about it. They make a decent case that there were a historical person named Jesus, mainly accomplished by their so called criteria of embarrassment (sayings that are so radical for their cultural context that one would hardly make them up and attribute it to your leader). I do not share their views when it comes to criticizing Paul and the apostles interpretation of representation of Jesus as the Messiah interpreting Jesus in light of the Old Testament. I share the views of N. T. Wright at this point (N. T. Wright: Seven Problems with the Jesus Seminar) , it is not unthinkable that Jesus himself as a Jew in a historical-cultural context of first century Judaism understood and presented himself in this way.Hope that answered your question
Paladin
Purchased Bewilderment
Yes perspective is by definition bias. Although as bias goes yours is most expansive.
Namaste Selapiel,I share the views of N. T. Wright at this point (N. T. Wright: Seven Problems with the Jesus Seminar) , it is not unthinkable that Jesus himself as a Jew in a historical-cultural context of first century Judaism understood and presented himself in this way.
Hope that answered your question
I don't quite think it does, however it seems interesting that so far all of those that oppose the writings and methodology of the Jesus Seminar have never read the writngs and methodologies of the Jesus Seminar....they just read critics. As for Wright's article...am I missing something...like the Seven Problems?
Is there something going on here that is outside of this thread?
Is perspective bias or biased? that's a question, which is it, bias or biased?
Our perspective is based on our accumulated experience and our current stance yes?
Maybe this should be another thread. Or of course I guess each bible is based on someone's perspective and someones bias...as the KJV is King Jame's VERSION (read perspective)....hmmmm now is that King Jame's bias...I think we are talking different aminals here.
Is perspective just that...an angle, a view, based on placement and experience whereby bias implies some ulterior intent?
Is the Jesus Seminar intent on getting to a root truth...vs the Conservative project bias conservative?
Or from another perspective one would say the Jesus Seminar is Biased Christian Liberalism and the other trying to Conserve the original intent?
Yeah, that article seems a bit weird, I just posted it to give you an abstract of his position.
I have read the criteria and methodologies of the Jesus seminar, at least as they were presented in this book by Patterson Amazon.com: God of Jesus: The Historical Jesus and the Search for Meaning (9781563382284): Stephen J. Patterson: Books
The Jesus Seminar is not very central where I study, though historical and liberal Christianity is, but I mainly encountered their writings in a course I took in religious dialogue, about Jesus & Muhammad, where we used historical portrayals of both of them as the basis of the course.
Interesting... you've caused me to remember something...and then something else...but first...I came across the Jesus Seminar when someone handed me their first book, The Five Gospels...when I first read their methodology I found it to be sort of spurious, but when I read the gospels as highlighted by their methodology it became quite interesting...I have yet to read the third book.
But you made me remember something someone told me once. "Most Christians follow the teachings of Moses and study the life history of Jesus." You know, ten commandments instead of the two or the new...lot of old testament law stuff...and glossing over a lot of the words of Jesus and focusing on the events... How do you feel about that...not saying you...but as a generalization?
And the other thought...the history of Jesus....what did they use in class other than biblical as source for history? As I understand it since that ascribed to Josephus has been deemed a forgery, what is left?
Josephus is a big debate. Some parts of it found in later manuscripts are considered forgeries, but as far as I can remember there are evidence that early manuscripts contain information about Jesus that have not been edited in.
We also considered Tacitus. But the course mainly used Biblical material, mainly the 3 synoptic gospels, especially Mark.
As for your quote. I do not like that focus on the events myself. Jesus gave new commandments and one should aspire to follow them. It is found in Paul as well in my opinion. One receives the Spirit through faith, but through the Spirit one are a limb of God in the world doing his work.
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
Nah. Nothin's going on.
Yeah me and Paladin are part of a conspiracy, partners in crime, sent to derail this thread.
Why don't we allow this Bible project to proceed so that we can properly assess its merits? It's obviously going to be a completely different version implicitly promoting a particular perspective. If this is really bad for Christianity, why not let the lay-people decide for themselves?
Off the top of my head . . .
Bias, I think is when you are distinctly ascribe a particular quality to something that may be favourable, unfavourable or just uncomfortable for certain people.
Perception is (or can be) . . . as Paladin said, bias. I'm just not sure whether perception is a subset of bias, vice versa, or if the two have a big overlap between them. I think the difference between perception and bias is that perception is how you feel or what you believe whereas bias is an agenda you are pursuing or promoting. Perception is passive, while bias is active.
Perspective isn't just how you feel or what you believe. It can be ideologically motivated or based on a particular method or tradition. It's an educated/trained opinion.
This reminds me of the Theological Pendulum:
Feelings, Emotions and Christian Truth - by Don Matzat
The Insecurity of the Believer and Arminianism