December 29, 2008

The Jesus Project

The Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER) is a research division of the Council for Secular Humanism and endeavored to do the Jesus Project. Someone named Charlie on a blog said about the project "As if any group sponsored by the CFI -- notorious atheist apologetics -- can be trusted to deliver accurate, balanced, and even remotely unbiased conclusions." Never the less, they claim a secular approach/viewpoint to religion. Their mission, or I would say mantra, is to promote that nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature. Keep in mind that "Science is an attempt to understand the natural world in a natural way. Science then in that sense is restricted to natural explanations for natural phenomena. If a natural explanation is inadequate then science stops." (D’Souza)

I am not sure how many have heard of the endeavor to find the truth that is Jesus. Although, in review of its predecessor called The Jesus Seminar, I will not be holding my breath. The "seminar" was a colossal fail. The Christian Arsenal accurately depicted the Jesus Seminar as a tool of Satan, meant to undermine Biblical beliefs. What else could be the purpose of it, I would ask?

The Jesus Project claims a different approach, but how different could it be with the same data and the same secular worldview? I digress. They claim that they are "the first methodologically agnostic approach to the question of Jesus’ historical existence." This description did spark my attention since I have had many conversations with people asking for this exact thing, that the events can be extra biblically corroborated. Although, it does beg the question as to starting with doubt in scripture. I am only 'curious' as to the results, and will be pleasantly surprised for confirmation of the Bible. If they conclude that there indeed was a Jesus and that Jesus was God himself, would it sway anyone to reconsider the Bible?

I do believe that Atheists would make some the strongest Christians, if there is such a thing, once convinced/enlightened. I denied Christ for years until that very special time in my life. Since Atheists are looking for evidence, would a positive conclusion as to the validity of the Bible's teachings from this project suffice as ample empirical evidence? In the past, the case was made that understanding through the intellect is a futile endeavor, but I wonder would this get Atheists to rethink the subject?

So when they admit that Scriptures are reliable and trustworthy historical documents and the Bible is a valid historical record then we can go to the next point, realizing that Jesus Christ claims to be the unique Son of God and that He bases this claim on His forthcoming resurrection from the dead.

Next, we examine the evidence for the resurrection contained in this historic document and find that the arguments overwhelmingly support the contention that Christ has risen from the dead. If this is true, then He is the unique Son of God as He claimed to be. If He is indeed God, then He speaks with authority on all matters.

Since Jesus considered the Old Testament to be the Word of God (Matthew 15:1-4, 5:17, 18) and promised His disciples, who either wrote or had control over the writing of the New Testament books, that the Holy Spirit would bring all things back to their remembrance (John 14:26), therefore we can insist, with sound and accurate logic, that the Bible is God's Word. This is not circular reasoning. It is establishing certain facts and basing conclusions on the sound, logical outcome of these facts. The case for Christianity can be established by ordinary means of historical investigation.

If you must trust man for evidence of the Bible, you will have to wait four more years for the results of the Jesus Project. So what do you do until then? All I ask is that you don't die before the findings. Have a safe New Year!

24 comments:

  1. Dan, why even bother? No seminar is going to change your mind. You say:

    I am not sure how many have heard of the endeavor to find the truth that is Jesus. Although, in review of its predecessor called The Jesus Seminar, I will not be holding my breath. The "seminar" was a colossal fail. The Christian Arsenal accurately depicted the Jesus Seminar as a tool of Satan, meant to undermine Biblical beliefs. What else could be the purpose of it, I would ask?

    The Jesus Seminar was only a "collosal fail" because it failed to find what you consider to be the truth. And of course, since their findings disagree with yours, and you know the Truth, its only possible purpose, like that of evolutionary theory, was as a tool of Satan to undermine Biblical beliefs.

    Given that attitude, why don't you just admit that you're not interested in hearing anything that contradicts your beliefs? It would save all of us a lot of time and trouble: it would enable us atheists to conveniently pigeonhole you as just another fundamentalist with his fingers in his ears, shouting "nyah nyah, I can't hear you".

    cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let's have a seminar by born again Christians that investigates the claims of atheism and see if Zilch accepts the conclusions.

    What a joke.

    This is about as valuable as Amadroolingslobs holocaust investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hmmm- all other things being equal, which truth-finding commission would you trust more: one that is willing to accept evidence from the whole world, or one that is only willing to accept evidence from one book?

    ReplyDelete
  4. @ Zilch.

    You mean the whole world were murdering 50 million unborn infants is considered a right?
    Where OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson and Phil Spector are judged to be innocent?
    Where everyone follows the every move of people like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Madonna?
    Where Hamas is considered the victim and Israel the aggressor?
    Where good is evil and evil good?

    The truth is rare in a wicked world, so I'll go with that one truthful Book. Thanks.
    I guess I've always been a bit of a rebel. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  5. You mean the whole world were murdering 50 million unborn infants is considered a right?

    Right, Dani'El: Didn't your god have babies and pregnant women killed in the OT?

    Not very consistent morality.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Right, Dani'El: Didn't your god have babies and pregnant women killed in the OT?

    Not very consistent morality.


    That's true Reynold.
    You are not morally consistent.

    You cannot tell the difference between judgment and murder, so you murder 50 million, and then hypocritically judge God for his righteous judgment of evil.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That's true Reynold.
    You are not morally consistent.

    You cannot tell the difference between judgment and murder, so you murder 50 million,

    I assume that when you said that "you murder 50 million" that you're speaking in a general manner and not referring to me, because I am pro-life.

    and then hypocritically judge God for his righteous judgment of evil.
    Yeah, because those babies really had it coming.

    Only your first sentence wasn't insane.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Zilch,

    all other things being equal, which truth-finding commission would you trust more: one that is willing to accept evidence from the whole world, or one that is only willing to accept evidence from one book?

    All things are not equal though, that "one book" is supernatural as evidenced by many factors. Evidence and recordings of events written down in a cohesive and complimentary message over a period of 1600 years prophesying some 300 truths is indeed out of the realm of scientific or or even naturalistic understanding. As long as the Bible itself stands front and center of this investigation then truth should be consistent with the known outcome.

    I would love to entertain the idea of believing in mankind. I look for hope in us, another reason for this blog (not just this post) because man can be honest at times and truth should never be avoided. Will this be one of those times remains to be seen still. I will remain cautiously hopeful.

    I am not afraid of truth at all if that is what comes out, but even the most hardened atheist would admit to the Jesus Seminar's failure to remain objective and truthful and non political.

    If this "evidence" debunks Christ, I would assume, the evidence must be so overwhelming; way beyond reasonable doubt; in order to persuade billions that they are wrong; if not the results should conclude that Jesus was real indeed and His claims would remain valid.

    So, if something cannot even withstand the scrutiny of its peers then it will fail, right!? (basic tenets of a peer review)

    Although I just read: "The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or ‘controversial’ or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities. "

    I will attack that extraordinary and honest claim in a later post about evolution's peer reviews, but I digress.

    So I psudo-welcome this project in hopes that the men will remain objective to the truth. We all understand and know the results that should be presented, the truth that should transpire as revealed in the Bible, anything short of that will raise my, as well as others, skepticism as to their process. Fair?

    I am hoping they can look at the evidence without agendas or special pleading. It's that same hope that you will see the truth someday, Zilch. I fully understand that Aerosmith would say at this point "Dream On" right?

    I... had an experience... I can't prove it, I can't even explain it, but everything that I know as a human being, everything that I am tells me that it was real! I was given something wonderful, something that changed me forever... A vision... of the universe, that tells us, undeniably, how tiny, and insignificant and how... rare, and precious we all are! A vision that tells us that we belong to something that is greater then ourselves, that we are *not*, that none of us are alone! I wish... I... could share that... I wish, that everyone, if only for one... moment, could feel... that awe, and humility, and hope. But... That continues to be my wish. (Ellie Arroway)

    ReplyDelete
  9. You wrote:
    "I wonder would this get Atheists to rethink the subject?"

    Yes, I agree. What an interesting study! Certainly, this is what atheists are looking for!

    You wrote...
    "So when they admit that Scriptures are reliable and trustworthy historical documents and the Bible is a valid historical record then we can go to the next point, realizing that Jesus Christ claims to be the unique Son of God and that He bases this claim on His forthcoming resurrection from the dead."

    This will change everything! I can't wait to hear the results of this study.

    Thanks for giving me a heads up. Keep us updated!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dan:
    All things are not equal though, that "one book" is supernatural as evidenced by many factors. Evidence and recordings of events written down in a cohesive and complimentary message

    Ignoring or explaining away any contradictions or inconsistencies?
    When reading though, I'd take into account what the guy from the first link says:

    These lists are meant to identify possible problems in the Bible, especially problems which are inherent in a literalist or fundamentalist interpretation. Some of the selections may be resolvable on certain interpretations--after all, almost any problem can be eliminated with suitable rationalizations--but it is the reader's obligation to test this possibility and to decide whether it really makes appropriate sense to do this. To help readers in this task, these lists are aimed at presenting examples where problems may exist given certain allowable (but not always obligatory) assumptions. It should be kept in mind that a perfect and omnipotent God could, should, and likely would see to it that such problems did not exist in a book which s/he had inspired. It should also be kept in mind that what is and is not an inconsistency or contradiction is to some extent a matter of opinion. You are entitled to disagree with the author that these are, in fact, inconsistencies or contradictions.
    Though there is no way that all of them can be rationalized away.


    Dan
    over a period of 1600 years prophesying some 300 truths
    You mean things like failed messianic prophecies? This article goes into some detail about how Jesus doesn't qualify to be the "messiah".

    Here's an interesting tidbit about why the temple sacrifices were supposed to have stopped around the time of Jesus.


    Dan:
    is indeed out of the realm of scientific or or even naturalistic understanding. As long as the Bible itself stands front and center of this investigation then truth should be consistent with the known outcome.

    As far as I'm concerned, these studies are more or less redundant.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hippo Gnu Deer to everyone from me too!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Those damned gnu deers...trampling on all the grass and urinating on the presents under the trees...

    We really need some gnu control, you know that?


    Anyway, a little bit more about that Jesus guy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I like the way Dan states the Jesus seminar is a classic fail. As usual, not a mention of why.

    That is the way Dan handles most of the questions he cannot answer.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hippie Nude Bear!

    (Just saw one in Golden Gate Park)

    Shalom from stinkin Sodom,
    Dani' El

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dani'El, you saw that too? LOL!

    Small world

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kaitlyn,
    There's one on every corner in some parts of town isn't there?

    No place to raise kids.

    Shalom,
    Dani' El

    ReplyDelete
  17. What's this about a nude bear in GG park? I do miss California sometimes... But I'll be there again this summer with my charming daughter Rozzle, and maybe we'll go to GG park, if it hasn't been consumed by brimstone by then.

    Dani'el: while I don't know the context of this "nude bear", I do know that nudity per se is something that kids understand, seeing as they're born nude, and often bathe nude. I saw my two kids being born, and I can tell you that they were nude. So what's the big deal about nudity?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Zilch,
    I'll explain the Hippie Nude Bear if you can explain the Hippo Gnu Deer.

    Nudity, hmm.
    How would you feel about a nude man leering at your daughter as she played in the playground?

    I can say from going to some nude beaches in Greece or even here at Bass Lake in the Marin Headlands, that people look pretty foolish naked, and certainly not sexy in any way.
    I can also tell that most who go there are exhibitionists who get off by exposing themselves and are far from being like children in the garden of Eden.

    I think when a man or woman saves their body for their spouse, including looking upon it naked, it becomes that much more erotic to the godly married couple.

    Which is one reason that pornography is so destructive to marriages. Most women (or men) cannot live up to those images and they become ugly in the eyes of their spouses.

    I grew up in Gomorrah, So Cal, and lived at the beach for some time where people walk around practically naked most of the time, and it really cheapened sex for me.
    Because we all fornicated with whomever we could, by the time I got married I was quite jaded about sex.
    The mystery was gone. It was like going to the toilet.
    And there was no going back.

    This is not to say that there is anything wrong with erotic love in a godly marriage. The song of Solomon is quite erotic.

    I know that folks in Europe, in the north anyway are not bothered with nudity in spas, coed showers etc. but like I said, it takes all the mystery out of sex.
    Kind of like unwrapped Christmas presents under the tree.
    The thrill is gone.

    Word ver-
    bacciel

    bizzarre!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dan- there's nothing to explain about the Hippo Gnu Deer: I was just looking for animal names that punned with "Happy New Year". So what's this about the nude hippie bear?

    I agree that nudity is not uncomplicated: it can be used as a threat, and exhibitionists that use nudity as a weapon to frighten people are sick. That said, I don't see what is wrong with nudity per se: here in Vienna we have nude beaches (on the Danube, for instance) and that's fine. I can't say that seeing lots of nude people has ruined my sex life: there's something to be said for mystery, but if your sex life depends upon the novelty of nudity, then I would say that there's something missing. But that's just my humble opinion.

    And as for fornication: I grew up in California in the sixties and seventies, and I can truthfully say, that plentiful fornication has not diminished my enjoyment of sex. I'm sorry if it has for you.

    Happy New Year to you and yours, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  20. Z- Dan- there's nothing to explain about the Hippo Gnu Deer: I was just looking for animal names that punned with "Happy New Year". So what's this about the nude hippie bear?

    D- I pray you are joking.
    You can't see that Hippie Nude Bear is also a Happy New Year pun?
    Really?
    Actually it's far closer than Hippo Gnu Deer.

    How do you know that sex wouldn't be far better for you if you had not done all that fornicating?
    I think fidelity is a beautiful thing, and that is only magnified if the couple are virgins at marriage. Like a very rare flawless diamond.

    I never said that the novelty of nudity was the only erotic thing about godly sex, but it sure magnifies it.

    And I pray you consider yourself fortunate to come out of the free sex days disease free. (if you did)
    I did not.

    These are very dangerous days for fornicators. What do you want for your daughter?

    Shalom from Sodom,
    Dani' El

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dani'el, you say:

    How do you know that sex wouldn't be far better for you if you had not done all that fornicating?

    I don't- I'm just guessing. How do you know that a life of celibacy, starting now, wouldn't be far better for you?

    These are very dangerous days for fornicators. What do you want for your daughter?

    What I want for my daughter is that she enjoy life and not get hurt unnecessarily, as much as possible. What do you wish for your kids?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Z- I don't- I'm just guessing. How do you know that a life of celibacy, starting now, wouldn't be far better for you?

    D- It is better, even best for me.
    I will remain celibate from here on out, per orders.
    And I know that it is best for me as God always guides me to what is best, for myself and others.

    D- "These are very dangerous days for fornicators. What do you want for your daughter?"

    Z- What I want for my daughter is that she enjoy life and not get hurt unnecessarily, as much as possible. What do you wish for your kids?

    I have no kids.

    But I want all, including you and yours, to have what is good for them. A lot of unbelievers say that God is just out to spoil the fun.
    But God's laws are not to spoil fun but for our protection.
    The joy of being in His will far surpasses any temporary pleasure the world offers.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>