I have two stories to tell. The first is factually, really true, true! It happened. At the end of this Seminar, hopefully you will understand why I emphasised that this story is factually, true truth. Here's the true story.
Recently I was talking with a fellow Christian who was devastated by a TV program that he had seen. This show featured some scholars who claimed that the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were myth and could not be trusted as historical documents. My friend was deeply troubled and in a trembling voice said, "I am shocked. My faith has been shaken to the core. I am numb in disbelief. These were scholars speaking and I knew nothing about this. As a Christian, have I been living a fantasy all this time? Is this Christian stuff all a game? Should I eat, drink and be merry? Drugs, sex and rock 'n roll here I come."
The second story is fantasy; it's a myth, but true, nonetheless. Hopefully, you'll realise the significance of that statement at the end of the workshop. It goes like this:
"We want to liberate Jesus. The only Jesus most people know is the mythic one. They don't want the real Jesus; they want the one they can worship. The cultic Jesus."
"The narrative gospels are also products of mythic imagination. Jesus is now confronted... with the more interesting question of the reasons why the gospels are so hard for moderns to recognize as myth.
"Eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him."
"The authors [from the Jesus Seminar] seem to have looked into the well of history searching for Jesus and seen their own reflection."
"What actually and historically happened to the body of Jesus can best be judged from watching how later Christian accounts slowly but steadily increased the reverential dignity of their burial accounts. His body left on the cross or in a shallow grave barely covered with dirt and stones, the dogs were waiting."
2. My presuppositions
There is a new breed of Bible bashers in the world today. These scholars have been in the closets of academic institutions. But no more. They are taking their message to the world through the popular mass media -- newspapers, magazines, television, radio, writing their own books at a popular level. They have their message of tearing into the Bible in Time, Newsweek and Life magazines, U.S. News and World Report and newspapers around the world. This version of Jesus was on the front pages of Time and Newsweek magazines, and U.S. News & World Report at Easter time 1996.
The publicity in Australia has been a trickle, but in the U.S., it has become a deluge. It may get that way in Australia, following the SBS TV series during 1999, "From Jesus to Christ." Robert Funk of the Jesus Seminar spoke at the United College (of the Uniting Church), North Parramatta, September 1998.
There was a public forum at St Francis (Anglican) Theological College, Milton, Brisbane, on December 9, 1998, involving Dr Greg Jenks of the Jesus Seminar (of the Drayton Anglican parish, Toowoomba), and Dr Paul Barnett, Anglican bishop of North Sydney, defending the orthodox view. The Seminar was titled, "Behind and Beyond the Jesus Seminar: Implications for Christian Discipleship."
This is a new kind of missionary group that has become very active. These preachers and academics are Bible-bashers of a different kind. As one Christian writer and defender of the faith said, they practice evangelism in reverse... they don't want you to commit your life to the Christ of the Gospels; they want you to surrender that commitment. And they claim to have history, science and scholarship on their side. They promote themselves under the banner of The Jesus Seminar.
Luke Timothy Johnson has some strong things to say against the Seminar. He is not known as an evangelical (but a Roman Catholic, former Benedictine monk and priest before becoming a biblical scholar), Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA., a school not known for its conservative, evangelical views. He says that he wrote his book, The Real Jesus, "to blow the whistle on a form of scholarship I consider misguided and misleading." Johnson admits, however, that "those whose work I have challenged have not faltered for a moment in their pursuits." Part of this is related to the mass media frenzy that they have created.
These are some of the newspaper headlines these scholars have grabbed:
These kinds of headlines do two things: First, they are negatively referring to the traditional Jesus of the Gospels; Second, scholars do this debunking.
When I ask, "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?" I am challenging the presuppositions and conclusions of Jesus Seminar Fellows and people of like mind. These are Bible Bashers of a different kind: these are people, mostly scholars, who do not want to take the Bible at face value. When the Bible speaks of supernatural things, it can't possibly be dealing with historical things. Burton Mack, not of the Jesus Seminar, but with views that are similar, says that the Gospels in our New Testament "are also products of mythic imagination" and one of the "interesting question[s]" for him is "why the gospels are so hard for moderns to recognize as myth."
Robert Funk, as cofounder of the Jesus Seminar, tells us of one aim: "We want to liberate Jesus. The only Jesus most people know is the mythic one. They don't want the real Jesus, they want the one they can worship. The cultic Jesus."
There is not a word in the Bible, Old or New Testament, to say that what they contain is myth. These scholars are distorting the Bible's message; in my opinion, they have become Bible bashers of a new kind.
They claim the Gospels are myth, but that doesn't matter. You can accept the Jesus of faith in this story, so Christ's not rising literally from the dead is no bother. He can live in your spirit without that historical stuff back there 2,000 years ago.
There was a public forum at St Francis (Anglican) Theological College, Brisbane, on December 9, 1998, involving Dr Greg Jenks of the Jesus Seminar (of the Drayton Anglican parish, Toowoomba), and Dr Paul Barnett, Anglican bishop of North Sydney, defending the orthodox view. The Seminar was titled, "Behind and Beyond the Jesus Seminar: Implications for Christian Discipleship." In a letter-to-the-editor in the Anglican newspaper from the Brisbane Diocese, Focus, which promoted this forum, Greg Jenks lets us into the methodology he adopts. He disparaged those who make "the mistake of taking the Bible literally."
What does the Jesus Seminar think of its critics? According to The Five Gospels, they come from the "skeptical left wing" and the "fundamentalist right." Yet, evangelical scholar, Dr. Don Carson of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Chicago (Deerfield, IL.) describes the Seminar in terms of "left wing ideology" that is anti-supernatural and engages in circular reasoning. An extremely strong response against the Seminar has come from Howard Clark Kee, "a critical scholar with an international reputation." He declared that the Seminar was "an academic disgrace."
What I found very interesting was the scholars' response to a request to have a discussion on TV in the USA with two evangelicals. Ravi Zacharias, one of the foremost defenders of the faith in the world, "was approached by a major news network [in the USA] to respond to these writings" [of the Jesus Seminar scholars]. Ravi
If you don't understand your Bible; if you are not convinced that the Bible consists of solid, historical, reliable documents, you will be hit for a sixer by these theologically liberal scholars who want to "educate the masses" about the REAL Jesus, who we will find, is ANOTHER Jesus. He's not the Jesus I have come to believe from the Bible and from my personal relationship with him.
Time magazine says, "The scholars are coming out of the closet." Dr. Julian Hill, a Jesus Seminar participant, says that the Seminar was intended to deal with
4. The Jesus Seminar Approach
"The Seminar employed colored beads dropped into voting boxes in order to permit all members to vote in secret. Beads and boxes turned out to be a fortunate choice for both Fellows and an interested public."They colour-coded the words of Jesus. About 150 scholars voted on Jesus' words as red, pink, grey, or black:
This is what they decided. There were two options given:
"pink: I would include this item with reservations (or modifications) in the database.
"gray: I would not include this item in the database,
but I might make use of some of the
"pink: Jesus probably said something like this.
"gray: Jesus did not say this, but the ideas contained in it are close to his own.
"pink: Sure sounds like Jesus.
"gray: Well, maybe.
"black: There's been some mistake."
The only words in the gospel of Mark that are supposed to be authentic are Mark 12 v.17, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." None of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. chapters 5-7) was accepted. Only two words of the Lord's Prayer were accepted, "Our Father." Nothing in the gospel of John was approved. But the scholars gave credibility to an "apocryphal book of sayings credited to someone named Thomas and used it to confirm or deny Jesus' words."
What is even more startling is that the thesis of Funk and Hoover's book, The Five Gospels, is based on comparing a book, The Gospel of Thomas, that is not credible as a source, with the Bible. It would be like judging the content of the Bible by a Christian novel or some heretical Christian writing.
One of the world's leading defenders of the Christian faith, Ravi Zacharias describes the Gospel of Thomas as:
Don Carson's view is that "they want their own canon [of Scripture]."When you put the false canon beside the genuine canon, the false is hard to defend. But it's the false canon that is gaining the media attention.
God's authentic, reliable Word determines both history and faith. When the Jesus Seminar has invented fiction to suit themselves, they have made truth appear stranger than fiction.
5. Presuppositions of the Jesus Seminar:
The Jesus Seminar laid its foundation on what the Fellows called "the Seven Pillars of Scholarly Wisdom." They wanted to view the historical Jesus "through the new lens of historical reason and research rather than through the perspective of theology and traditional creedal formulations."
These are the sevem pillars:
The Seminar starts with a totally opposite set of fundamental beliefs. Most of its fellows would agree with these statements:
The stories of Jesus' birth are myths in this sense. Along with most mainline scholars, I do not think these stories report what happened. The virginal conceptions, the star, the wise men, the birth in Bethlehem where there was no room in the inn, and so forth are not facts of history. But I think these stories are powerfully true. . .
The stories of Jesus' death and resurrection contain a mixture of historical memory and mythical narration. The stories of Jesus' execution are closer to history than the birth stories; he really was crucified under Pontius Pilate around the year 30. . .
But as the stories of Jesus' death and resurrection are told, the authors of the New Testament make use of a number of symbolic motifs to suggest its religious significance [a motif is a main element, idea, feature, etc.(68)]."
"What happens when the story of Jesus a whole is framed by the stories of Christmas, Good Friday and Easter. The story as whole - the completed Christian story - becomes a story about God and us, a myth about God and us... This does not mean, of course, that the historical Jesus was God... The canonical Jesus [the Jesus in the Bible canon of Scripture] discloses what Jesus became in the experience and life of early Christian communities.
"We do not need to choose between [the historical Jesus or the canonical Jesus]... Both disclose what God is like."
Do you hear what he is saying?
One of the most important questions you can ask of any point of view (a question almost never asked by the media) is this: Why do they believe it? This allows us to determine whether the reasons lead properly to the conclusions.
Everyone has a starting point. The place the Jesus Seminar begins is carefully concealed from the public at large, but it's the most critical issue. Why do they claim there is no evidence, say, for the bodily resurrection of Jesus? That is a key question.
Their reasoning goes something like this: It's impossible for the Gospels to be historically accurate, because they record things that simply can't happen, like dead people coming alive again and food multiplying--miracles don't happen. We live in a closed universe of natural order, with God (if there is a God) locked out of the system. If miracles can't happen, then the reports in the New Testament must be fabrications. Therefore, the Gospels are not reliable historical documents.
Further, if miracles can't happen, then prophecy (a kind of miraculous knowledge) can't happen. The Gospels report that Jesus prophesied the fall of Jerusalem. Therefore, they could not have been written early, but after the invasion of Titus of Rome in 70 A.D. In addition, eyewitnesses could not have written them, as the early church Fathers claimed.
Notice that the Jesus Seminar doesn't start with historical evidence; it starts with presuppositions, assumptions that it makes no attempt to prove. This is not history; it's philosophy, specifically, the philosophy of naturalism.
Robert Funk and the Seminar admit as much: "The gospels are now assumed to be narratives in which the memory of Jesus is embellished by mythic elements that express the church's faith in him, and by plausible fictions that enhance the telling of the gospel story for first-century listeners. . ."
The mass media report that the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar are based on scientific, historical analysis: the resurrection didn't happen; the miracles are myths; there is no authentic prophecy in the Bible; the Gospels were written long after the events took place; they were not written by eyewitnesses; the testimony of the early church Fathers can't be trusted.
This is misleading because the Jesus Seminar doesn't conclude that the Gospels are inaccurate. That's where they begin before they've looked at one single shred of actual historical evidence. When you start with your conclusions, you're cheating. You haven't proved anything at all.
These are people with a mission. Robert Funk, the Seminar's founder, says, "It is time for us [scholars] to quit the library and study and speak up. . . The Jesus Seminar is a clarion call to enlightenment. It is for those who prefer facts to fancies, history to histrionics, science to superstition."
This is a strong challenge to evangelicals, depicted here as preferring nice stories to accurate history. Sometimes the best defence is knowing the right questions to ask. These are the ones you need to ask when the Jesus Seminar hits the newsstands.
By this definition, only fourteen members of the Seminar qualify, including scholars like John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg. Twenty others are recognizable names in the field. One quarter of the group, though, comprises complete unknowns (one is a movie producer), and half of them come from a cluster of three ultra-liberal theological schools: Harvard, Claremont, and Vanderbilt.
Clearly, the Jesus Seminar cannot be viewed as a relevant cross-section of academic opinion. This doesn't mean that their conclusions are false; it means theirs is only one voice of many, viewed even by liberal scholars as suspect and on the extreme fringe. Dr. Gregory Boyd has written a substantial refutation of the Jesus Seminar's view of Jesus. His view is that "the Jesus Seminar represents an extremely small number of radical-fringe scholars who are on the far, far left wing of New Testament thinking. It does not represent mainstream scholarship."
Luke Johnson says that it is "a small, self-selected association of academics." "This is not responsible, or even critical, scholarship. It is a self-indulgent charade."
Professor Richard Hays of Duke University (North Carolina) reviewed the book, The Five Gospels, and said that "the case argued by this book would not stand up in any court… Nor does it represent a fair picture of the current state of research on this problem."
8. What Does the Jesus Seminar Believe?
The Jesus Seminar meets twice a year to dissect biblical passages. Their goal: separate historical fact from mythology. So far, they have rejected as myth the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the virgin birth, all Gospel miracles, and a full 82% of the teachings normally attributed to Jesus--all dismissed as legendary additions with no historical foundation.
An article in the L.A. Times entitled, "Scholars Cite Lack of Resurrection Evidence," also carried this subtitle: "Controversial Jesus Seminar evaluates New Testament, but members affirm that event's religious significance does not hinge on the historical record."
According to this piece, there are two things the Jesus Seminar has to say about the resurrection of Jesus.
First, it never happened. There's no historical evidence for it.
Second, it doesn't matter. Christians can still celebrate Easter with its symbolic message of hope and new life.
Robert Funk calls Jesus a "secular sage who satirized the pious and championed the poor." He then adds, "Jesus was perhaps the first stand-up Jewish comic. Starting a new religion would have been the farthest thing from his mind."
Isn't that an odd thing to say about Jesus? Jesus didn't rise from the dead. He didn't work miracles. He didn't give us the greatest teaching in the world. Instead, He was a stand-up comic, according to the founder of the Jesus Seminar.
9. Does Their Bias Make Them Open-minded or Closed-minded?
I agree with philosopher J.P. Moreland that Christian scholars have a point of view, like everyone else. The Christian's bias should not inform his or her conclusions the same way biases inform the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar.
Because people like Robert Funk start with what he calls the "scientific" view that there can be no miracles, their bias arbitrarily eliminates options before the game even gets started. Funk must conclude the Gospels have been tampered with because his philosophy demands it. He can't consider any evidence for a resurrection because he's closed his mind to the possibility of miracles.
A Christian is not hindered in this way. The Christian believes in the laws of nature, but is also open to the possibility of God's intervention. Both are consistent with his worldview. This means he can be faithful to the evidence, unhindered by a metaphysical view that automatically eliminates supernatural options before even viewing the evidence.
The bias of true Christians broadens their categories, making them more open-minded . The believer has a greater chance of discovering truth, because he/she can follow the evidence wherever it leads. The bias of the Jesus Seminar, on the other hand, makes it close-minded and dogmatic. It must also be noted that some evangelicals can also be close-minded as well.
Newspaper articles cast the issue in the opposite way, though. One mentions a dean of a prominent Baptist seminary who says the Seminar's work is driving a wedge between faith and history among Christians.
What is unfortunate about this representation is that it pits the "historical" and "scientific" analysis of the Jesus Seminar against those poor sods who rely only on "faith." And since the facts of history are sabotaging the faith of some, Christians are now upset. It's as if they were saying, "Please don't tell me these things and confuse me with the facts. It might weaken my faith." This casts believers as nincompoops, obscurantists who want to cling to fantasy.
But that isn't the way it is at all. The conclusions of the Jesus Seminar don't represent facts. Rather, their point of view and research methods are deeply flawed because of their prior commitment to a philosophic position that is already hostile to the events described in the text of the Gospels. It isn't an issue of historical fact versus religious faith. The facts are actually on the side of the resurrection, not on the side of the wishful thinking of the Jesus Seminar.
10. Are the Gospels reliable history or are they mythic?
The so-called "search for the historic Jesus" is over one hundred years old. Virtually nothing discovered during that time undermines the Gospel accounts. There is no "new evidence" supporting the idea that the miracle-working Son of God was the result of a myth inserted in the Gospel records over a long period of time. To the contrary, recent discoveries have given more credibility to the content of the Gospels themselves. This is why the trend in the last 20 years has been for liberal scholars to become more conservative in their views on the reliability of the Gospels, not less.
Recent finds in archaeology, for example, show us that funerals were conducted differently in Galilee than in Jerusalem, consistent with the details in the Gospels. A person fabricating a story generations after the fact would not know this because of the devastation in Galilee by the Romans in 70 A.D.
This doesn't prove that Jesus rose from the dead, but it's one of a number of things that have been discovered over time that point to the accurate detail of the Gospel accounts. This gives substance to the claim that the writers were eyewitnesses at the time of the events, OR associates of eyewitnesses.
We know the Apostle Paul died during the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64. Paul was still alive at the close of Acts, so Acts must have been written sometime before A.D. 64. Acts was a continuation of Luke's Gospel, which must have been written earlier still. The book of Mark predates Luke, even by the Jesus Seminar's reckoning. This pushes Mark's Gospel into the 50s, just over twenty years after the crucifixion.
It is undisputed that Paul wrote Romans in the mid-50s, yet he proclaims Jesus as the resurrected Son of God in the opening lines of that epistle. Galatians, another uncontested Pauline epistle of the mid-50s, records Paul's interaction with the principal disciples (Peter and James) at least 14 years earlier (Gal 1:18, cf. 2:1).
The Jesus Seminar claims that the humble sage of Nazareth was transformed into a wonder-working Son of God in the late first and early second century. The epistles, though, record a high Christology within 10 to 20 years of the crucifixion. That simply is not enough time for myth and legend to take hold, especially when so many were still alive to contradict the alleged errors.
There is no good reason to assume the Gospels were fabricated or seriously distorted in the retelling. Time and again the New Testament writers claim to be eyewitnesses to the facts. They give abundant geographic and cultural details not available to writers of the next century. We also now know that it was the habit of Jewish disciples to memorise entire discourses of their rabbi's teaching. But there's another problem.
11. Would you follow a mythical Jesus who engaged in symbolic ways of how God and people should relate? Would you follow a Jesus who said he would rise again in three days, did just that, but then you discovered it was only a mythical way of showing darkness vs. light?
Even the members of the Jesus Seminar admit that Jesus was executed on a Roman Cross. But why was He killed? Who would follow this deconstructed Jesus? Who would care if He lived or died?
Leading Jesus scholar John Meier notes that a Jesus who "spent his time spinning parables and Japanese koans...or a bland Jesus who simply told people to look at the lilies of the field...would threaten no one, just as the university professors who create him threaten no one."
In Jesus Under Fire , J.P. Moreland sums up what the Jesus Seminar is asking us to believe based on nothing more than the strength of their philosophical assumptions:
The Jesus Seminar wants us to believe that nothing meaningful is surrendered as a result of their analysis. Even though the resurrection is false, they say, it still has significance because of the story it tells.
The Apostle Paul disagreed. "If Christ has not been raised," he wrote, "your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied."
If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, but instead was buried in a shallow grave and later dug up and eaten by dogs, as Robert Funk asserts, then Christians have nothing to celebrate. Rather, they should be pitied, according to Paul. Pretty stories not grounded in fact save no one. Only a risen Saviour can defeat death.
I'm with Paul. I pity the Jesus Seminar Fellows who think that we can hold on to some kind of vain, empty, religious confidence when all the facts of history go against us. If that's true, then you and the Jesus Seminar and I are all still in our sins. That's not something to celebrate on Easter.
As for me, I'm going to stand with Paul. I'm going to stand with Jesus. I'm going to stand with the resurrection.
13. An Approach to Refuting the Jesus Seminar
A. You must become a reader.
2. Matthew, Mark and Luke offer a portrait of Jesus within one generation of his death.
3. The Book of Acts was possibly written before Paul's death about A.D. 64, so the book of Luke was written even earlier;
5. The Gospels' simplicity does not reflect a fabrication, eg. the women witnesses of Jesus' resurrection despite their lower status in society, Jesus' baptism by John, Christ's ignorance of the time of his second coming, his not doing miracles in some places;
6. Why invent so many miracles stories, when most Jews expected a political deliverer as Messiah, not a wonder-worker?
Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament History? (Hodder & Stoughton, 1986).
Paul W. Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History (Apollos/Inter-Varsity Press U.K., 1997).
Paul Barnett, Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity (InterVarsity Press, USA, 1999).
John Blanchard, Will the real JESUS please stand up? (Durham, England, Evangelical Press, 1989).
Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Inter-Varsity Press, UK, 1987).
Darrell L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus: A guide to Sources and Methods (Baker Academic, 2002).
Gregory A. Boyd, Jesus Under Siege (Victor Books, 1995) -- for laity.
Gregory A. Boyd, Cynic, Sage or Son of God. (Victor Books, 1995).
F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Inter-Varsity Press, UK, 1960).
Paul Copan, "True For You, But Not For Me": Deflating the Slogans That Leave Christians Speechless (Bethany House Publishers, 1998).
Paul Copan (ed.) Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? (debate between William Lane Craig, Christian defender of the faith, and John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar) [Baker Books,1998].
Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (HarperSanFrancisco, 1996).
Gregory Koukl, "The Jesus Seminar Under Fire" (based on his radio show, "Stand to Reason,") at http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/bible/jsuf.htm(retrieved 13 May 2000).
Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Zondervan, 1998).
Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith (Zondervan, 2000).
Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, Jesus Under Fire (Zondervan, 1995).
Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest (InterVarsity, USA, 1997.
Ravi Zacharias, "They Want Their Own Canon," from the web site, ."Just thinking," available at: www.rzim.org/jt/twtoc.htm(retrieved 13 May 2000).
B. Promoting the Jesus Seminar Agenda:
Conclusions of the Jesus Seminar
Most Fellows of the Jesus Seminar would probably agree with the following conclusions:
Matthew contains many sayings of Jesus which have been rated red or pink. But all of the words attributed to Jesus from the description of the last judgment in Chapter 25 until the end of the Gospel, were rated black (definitely not said by Jesus).Luke also contains many pink and red ratings. But all of the sayings attributed to Jesus from his comment that the earth will pass into oblivion within a generation (Luke 21:32) to the end of the Gospel are all rated black.
The Gospel of John was unique among the canonical Gospels: none of the words attributed to Jesus were rated red. There was only one pink passage. One was gray (Jesus did not say this, but it contains ideas similar to his). The vast majority of sayings were rated black.
1. With assistance from Gregory Koukl, "The Jesus Seminar Under Fire"
(based on his radio show, "Stand to Reason,") http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/bible/jsuf.htm,
retrieved 13 May, 2000, "Stand to Reason" at P.O. Box 6568, San Pedro,
CA 90734, Email: email@example.com, retrieved
from www.str.org last updated: August
12, 1997 (retrieved on 13 May 2000).
75. Robert Funk, The Gospel of Mark, Red Letter Edition. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1991, pp. xvi- xvii.
76. Jesus Seminar Forum: http://religion.rutgers.edu/jseminar/, retrieved 13 May 2000.
77. A partial list of scholars who have participated or are presently involved with the Jesus Seminar can be found at: http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/fellows.html, retrieved 13 May 2000.
78. Gregory A. Boyd, Cynic, Sage or Son of God. Wheaton, Illinois: A Bridgepoint Book (Victor Books), 1995.
79. Interview with Gregory Boyd in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998, 114.
80. Johnson, 1.
81. Ibid., 26.
82. "The Corrected Jesus," First Things, May 1994, 43-48, in Johnson, 26.
83. Los Angeles Times, March 11, 1995, in Koukl.
84. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus , vol. 1 New York: Doubleday, 1991, 177, quoted in Wilkins & Moreland, 21.
85. Wilkins and Moreland, 22.
86. 1 Corinthians 15:17-19.
87. From Paul Copan, "True for You, But Not for Me." Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1998, 99.
88. See a more detailed explanation in ibid., ch. 15.
89. Ibid., 105-106.
90. See a more detailed explanation in ibid., ch. 16.
91. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jsem.htm , retrieved 13 May 2000; Copyright 1998, 1999, originally written: 1998-JUL-5; Latest update: 1999-DEC-8; Author: B.A. Robinson
Copyright (c) 2003 Spencer D. Gear. This document is free content. You can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the OpenContent License (OPL) version 1.0, or (at your option) any later version. This document last updated at 31st January 2003.