In short, even the minimal amount of information supplied by Borg argues for objective appearances, while contrary suppositions are disproven. This conclusion is further reinforced by both the early, apostolic preaching in Acts, as well as the Gospel narratives. Summary and Conclusion

The Jesus Seminar has made no secret about its contention that the orthodox conception of Jesus is outdated and ought to be rejected. Thus, supernatural events such as the Gospel reports of Jesus’ miracles must at least be seriously questioned, and more likely repudiated.

Zondervan, 1987), especially chapter 13; Craig, chapter 4; Norman L. Geisler, The Battle for the Resurrection(Nashville: Nelson,1989), especially chapters 7–8; Gary R. Habermas and J.P. Moreland, Immortality(Nashville: Nelson, 1992), chapter 9.

55 These affirmations are found in Borg, Jesus, pp. 184–185 and Borg, “Thinking about Easter,” pp. 15, 49.

56 Just some of the roadblocks to explaining Jesus’ appearances as hallucinations (or as otherwise subjective incidents) include the private nature of such psychological phenomena, thereby precluding group citings such as the three reported by Paul in 1Cor. 15:5–7, the negative mental states of the recipients, the variety of persons, times, and places involved, the extent of the disciples’ transformations, the empty tomb, James’ conversion, and Paul’s experience on the way to Damascus.

Yet, seldom are any reasonsgiven for such a stance. Mere theological assertion seems to be the order of the day. Appeals to peer pressure (in the name of the current state of modern scholarship) serve as the impetus and those who dare to disagree are sometimes painted as hopelessly backward. Nevertheless, it is certainly insufficient to simply state one’s view or claim a critical consensus without adequate evidence.