Jesus Doesn't Look Like Jesus Anymore, Says Scholar
By
Amid a technology-driven culture where latest means better, it may not surprise many to find out that historical Jesus has also received a makeover.
He used to be known as Messiah, Son of God, Redeemer and Christ. Now, he's spiritual guru, philosopher, political pundit, hippie, and rock star.
Will the real Jesus please stand up?
Ben Witherington, author of "What Have They Done to Jesus?," observes that today's image of Jesus has ranged from historical to hysterical in a society that is becoming increasingly less Christian.
"He is an icon but also a swear word," Witherington said Thursday to The Christian Post.
"When your culture is biblically illiterate, anything can pass for Jesus," added the New Testament professor at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky.
Even takes on Jesus that borrow from Buddhist philosophy and Gnosticism are finding an audience.
This is true for the Jesus seen in Deepak Chopra's "The Third Jesus: The Christ We Cannot Ignore." In his latest book, the "body-mind" Indian doctor attempts to argue that Jesus was a spiritual guru whose teaching sought to lead people toward the highest level of enlightenment or "god-consciousness."
This re-invention of Jesus doesn't contribute to but evacuates his identity, commented Witherington.
Jesus is not a "generic self-help dude who gets you to a higher spiritual plane in your life," he explained. "He was a ransom for many … and that distinguishes Jesus from other gurus like Buddha."
Witherington also repudiated the notion of a "Gnostic Jesus," which suggests that Jesus taught a process of reasoning that would help elevate one's already divine nature to the level of God. Gnosticism, which mainstream Christians blatantly reject, was covered in Dan Brown's best-selling book, "The Da Vinci Code."
"I call it the Gospel of Narcissism," Witherington said.
The New Testament expert said he noticed many other distorted images of Jesus elsewhere, from pop-culture to politics.
"Everybody wants Jesus on his side," he said, and sometimes they "co-opt Jesus for their agendas."
But Witherington, like most Christians, believes that the true portrait of Jesus can only be found in the Bible's New Testament.
He said those writings show that Jesus was more than a miracle worker or great teacher but someone who died to bring salvation to mankind and who was commissioned for bringing the Kingdom of God.
He said that as Easter approaches, people should remember not only Jesus who died as King of the Jews but the eschatological Jesus whose resurrection marked the beginning of the End Times.
"We're living in the End Times," said the Asbury professor. "It should change your priority in life in such a way that you live with a certain contingency about this world."
Most Commented Articles
- Planned Parenthood Promotes Mother's Day Abortions, Draws Protests
- University Employee Suspended Over 'Anti-Gay' Column
- New York Court Recognizes Foreign Gay 'Marriages'
- 'Lost' Christians Greatest Crisis in American Church, says Author
- 'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States
- Evangelical Writers Challenged to Avoid Alienating the Unchurched
- Pastors Encouraged to Challenge IRS Ban on Political Preaching
- University Employee Suspended Over 'Anti-Gay' Column
- 'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States
- Mother's Day Celebration Reaches 100th Anniversary
- Christians Worldwide Mark 4th Global Day of Prayer
- Planned Parenthood Promotes Mother's Day Abortions, Draws Protests
- 'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States
- Franklin Graham Visits China Ahead of Olympics
- Pastors Encouraged to Challenge IRS Ban on Political Preaching
- Michigan Court Rules in Favor of Marriage
- 'Lost' Christians Greatest Crisis in American Church, says Author
- 'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States
- University Employee Suspended Over 'Anti-Gay' Column
- Students Leaving Oral Roberts University After Scandal
- Christian Professor Resigns Over School's Divorce Policy
- Theologian: Bible Focuses on God Dealing with Suffering
Featured Advertiser Links
- 1031 Exchange Attorney
- Digital Praise - Completely Redesigned Dance Game with All Christian Music!
- Online Degrees from Accredited Colleges and Seminaries.
- Life Changes.. So Should your Life Insurance
- Christian Car-Boat-House Donations
- Deographics:Best Website Design
Custom Web Development, Get Your Free Quote Now.
- Christian Internet Broadcasting Network - Sermons, Ministry Resources,Movie,Worship,UCC video.
- Apostolos Campus Ministry
- Financial Freedom Change Your Financial State in 2008 100% Automated
- Christian Tshirt Printing
- Partners:
-
Comments
Sorry about the delay. The vacation was nice but I am glad to be home.
You said (to seedplanter),
"Atheists aren't trying to take credit for the development of modern science; what matters is that it works,(regardless of belief/unbelief)"
True, however this doesn't mean that belief or unbelief is superior (if that is what you were implying).
(To Adam)
"What kind of proof would convince you that God does not exist?"
I believe that Adam was asking you for the proof, that you have found convincing, that God does not exist. I too would be interested to see your argument for atheism, I spend too much time trying to defend my viewpoints.
"Have a good vacation, but remember to bring me back lots of objective evidence, or I won't believe you ever left!;-) "
Thanks, and trust me the vacation happened (haha)! So objective evidence? I think I said this below, but I rather prefer Craig's five point argument for the existence of God.
1)Cosmological- All evidence shows that the universe did begin with a "Big Bang", and there are many other reasons to believe that the universe did have a beginning. Everything that has a beginning has a cause. Since the universe had a beginning it must have had a cause. (Now in order to avoid a never ending chain of causes, which is logically impossible, or go completely against science, we would need an uncaused, immensely powerful, and "eternal" being. God fits the description)
Note: I have yet to hear a good alternative from atheists, the most common objection is that "God must have a cause" But that is not the case. God is by definition, uncaused (no beginning no end). Atheist counter theories range from multiple universes (very very bad science, and entirely unbelievable), to an oscillating universe (multiple "bangs" and "crunches", but this one doesn't workout either, as each "new" universe would get smaller and smaller until it becomes a singularity, and if it had been happening forever, then it should have reached a singluarity by now), to simply an eternal universe (against modern science). Without a stronger atheist argument, and with good reason to believe it is God, I believe this argument is pretty strong.
2)Teleological- At the "conception" of the universe at the Big Bang, many natural laws were formed, including gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, etc. The ratio of these natural laws formed independently of one another, and according to no set pattern (as far as modern scholarship tells us). What is more, if any were changed even slightly, then life would be impossible. The window is so small for life as we know it, that I believe one science philosopher likened it to pointing at a 1 inch target across the universe, and hitting it perfectly. The chances are so astronomical that any rational person would believe it had been "set up". Well, if it was set up, then by who? Again God seems to be the best answer (unless you can provide better?)
3)Morality- It seems obvious that objective morals exist, and most people do believe that objective morals exist. Atheism fails miserably in defining any kind of objective moral standard, and theism explains morals very nicely (as argued below). This leaves us with two options, 1) reject objective morals and accept (shudders) relative morals (cringes) or 2) believe in God.
Note: I have yet to hear an argument from atheists for objective morals that was even vaguely satisfactory. The best is that they "just are" like 1+1=2. But this is not true, 1+1=2 is not equivalent to morality, and therefore the comparison cannot be made. And, even if morals "just are" then that still is not a proof, it is just saying something. I can say, "I am the greatest man on earth" but this statement is literally valueless unless I could prove it in some way (I cannot, because I am not).
4) The historical evidence for the Resurrection- William Lane Craig gives a very simple and straightforward argument for this. Nearly all biblical scholars agree that certain events described in the Bible are indeed accurate. 1) That Jesus did probably die on a cross, 2) That Jesus was buried in a tomb (owned by a member of the Sanhedrin), 3) That there was an empty tomb (witnessed first by women), and 4) that the followers of Jesus did have some kind of experiences of Jesus after He died.
Now if we accept these as true (again, most biblical historical scholars accept them as true, even the secular ones), then it seems that the Resurrection is the best fit to answering these events. Other theories presented (swoon theory, stolen body, Judas died on the cross, etc.) all come up short and just do not explain the facts. In the debate between Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig, Craig did an excellent job of defending his position, and it seemed that Ehrman was just left saying "Well supernatural events just do not happen!" As if that proves something.
5) Experiential- This is what we have been discussing, and though it is not exactly "objective" in the sense that you would like, without good reason why I should doubt my experience with God, I see no reason why I should reject them.
So that is the very simple, basic explanation of 5 separate, but connected arguments. There is a lot more, but I am doing all this off the top of my head, and it is very late where I am, so it might not be as coherent as it usually might be. I await your response.
"Chris, have a great vacation! As much time as you spend on here debating skeptics, she is probably quite anxious to get outta town"
Haha, yeah... I have been trying to cut back a little here so I can spend more time with her, I have 2 other cites I am posting on too, and it gets a little time consuming. No worries though, I am sure I spend enough time with her. Thanks for the consideration!
"Enjoy your vacation."
Thanks, I did!
"the onus is on us to prove God's existance."
No, this is a myth, a very sad myth, but a myth nonetheless. The burden of proof is equally on both the atheist and theist. Both are asserting a certain worldview, which must be accounted for. What is more, theism has always been (and still is) the predominant view, therefore the newer, or less acclaimed view almost always should present their argument first. (i.e. if in metaphysics one were to claim that electrons do NOT exist, then the burden of proof would follow heavily on such a person. Even though they are asserting a negative, it goes against evidence, experience, and accepted theory)
"Obviously Hume doesn't feel God in his / her life "
Possibly, or Hume has ignored it or convinced himself that it cannot be God.
"its not like your wife where you can see her - she's there (you can engage your senses and prove it)."
But my seeing her doesn't make her anymore real, even if she were 3000 miles away I would still believe she existed and was real. I might only be able to write letters to her, or talk on the phone, but I would still believe she was real. I have experienced God in my life, and I do have a relationship with Him. I do not have to "see" Him in order to believe in Him.
"you cannot prove God's existance - that is why it requires faith."
True, but you cannot even prove that you are really a person, you could be a brain being tested in scientific experiments made to believe that this is all real. It requires some faith to do virtually anything, even if we don't realize it. The faith may be of a different kind with God, but I do not believe it is any weaker.
"Those things are real and certainly enough evidence for some to have faith! :)"
You are correct, but Hume doesn't want that, nor should he be satisfied with it. My experiences have some weight in a veridical sense, but my goal here is to show Hume that sensory perception is not the only means by which we can know something to be true.
Good to hear from you again ifeelfine.
That's why these fancy conversations bore me. Because no one ever says what is REALLY going on. You operate from a premise that you only believe what you have evidence for, yet you CLEARLY hold to an atheistical worldview without a shread of conclusive evidence. You say christians have blind faith, but you have no conclusive evidence that God does not exist, yet you choose to believe that. Why should I take you seriously as a genuine truth-seeker? You know what you want to be true, and that's the end of it.
You have no conclusive proof of what you believe. I would rather you be honest that you are just really offended by the idea of a God who will judge your life than try to sell yourself as a legitimate truth-seeker.