"One big, heretical glob of unproven assumption."

I found it interesting that Johnson indicated that the scholars of the Jesus seminar wrote to their peers. One scholar writes his view of Jesus. The next liberal scholar builds off of the last scholar’s writing. The process just continues until there is a large mass of liberal heresies. The scope of influence isn’t expanded at all; it merely compounds until it is just one big, heretical glob of unproven assumption. Conservatives who read liberal writing on the Historical Jesus do not generally come to similar conclusions nor do they agree with them, but they understand the other side of the argument in order to know where the argument is going. This same concept is likewise for conservative scholars. It seems a bit futile to me for the liberal scholars (whose view does not seem to be widely accepted outside of the Jesus seminar) to write book after book about Jesus having made no real, affirmative conclusions about him.

This historical quest (according to my readings in Johnson’s book) removes faith from the equation and therefore undermines the very core of Christianity. That being said, I find liberal scholarship to be a blatant attack on Christianity, and frankly, sir, I don’t like it!

Zach Pyron