Many Christians have recently been upset by a group known as the "Jesus Seminary", which claimed the most bizarre claims of the New Testament, casting doubt on 82% of the Gospel attributed to Jesus. One member of the group, John Dominique Crossan, went too far in his denial of the resurrection, claiming that Jesus had been buried in a rock grave that the dogs had scattered and ate the body! But what is called the Seminary of Jesus does not speak of true Jesus and there are at least seven reasons that call us to reach this conclusion.
The Wrong Collection:
The Synod of Jesus, founded in 1985, consists of more than seventy "academic scholars", most of whom belong to the radical wing. Some are atheists. Some are not "academics" (one working in the film industry). The atheist group founder Robert Funk acknowledged the radical nature of their work when he said: "We examine the most sacred things in millions, and so what we do almost always to rowing." It is a sincere and accurate statement.
The wrong motive:
Their goal is to recognize Jesus as a new, "imaginary" creation, which requires the destruction of the image of Jesus as painted by the Gospels and the construction of a new image that suits modern man. As a result, no one should seek true Jesus in their work. They create Jesus in their image. Moreover, their work is shrouded in their pursuit of fame, as they themselves admit. "We will try to do our work in public and in full view. We will not only respect freedom of information, but we insist on publicly demonstrating our work. " The clearest evidence is that Jesus' ordination sought fame from the beginning. The television conference, the numerous articles, the press interviews, the tapes, and the film that is expected to be
produced are all other indications of their propaganda objective.
The wrong method:
Their biased style tries to determine the right based on the majority of votes. This method today is no better than the time when the majority believed that the world was square. Seventy "academic scholars" who have a radical tendency to say what Jesus said are like giving 100 congressmen a liberal-dominated vote to vote on raising taxes.
Wrong books:
Jesus' seminal vote is partly based on the "Gospel of Q" (from the German word Quelle, meaning the original source) and on the Gospel of Thomas, which dates back to the second century and is attributed to heretics of the Gnostics. Moreover, The seminary is based on the "Secret Mark of Mark" that does not exist. As a result, they consider the questionable Gospel of Thomas the Apocrypha of the second century to be more authentic than the discotheque and John the older.
Wrong Assumptions:
Their conclusions are based on extreme prejudices, including their unjustified rejection of miracles. If God exists, then miracles are possible. Hence, any prior rejection of miracles represents a rejection of the existence of God. In the light of their implicit atheism, we should not be surprised at their rejection of Jesus as the Gospels imagine. Their conclusions are also based on an unfounded assumption that Christianity was influenced by mystical religions. As we saw in chapter XII, this can not be true. The Book of the Holy Scriptures, the unified Jews, would not have been used for idolatrous sources that believed in the multiplicity of gods and were not dependent on subsequent sources.
The wrong dates:
They assume unjustifiably late dates for the four Gospels (often from 70 to 100 m). Thus they see that they can create enough time to conclude that the New Testament consists of myths about Jesus. However, this is contrary to the facts as we saw in chapters IX and X. The New Testament belongs to an early age and contains a material from older sources.
Wrong conclusions:
After undermining Jesus' true basis according to the Gospels, Jesus was unable to come to real agreement on the actual identity of Jesus: a pessimistic person, a wise mother, a Jewish reformer, a woman advocate, a prophet's teacher, a revolutionary socialite, With ethers. No wonder that something wrong group, wrong method, based on wrong books based on false presuppositions, using the wrong dates finds the wrong conclusion.