Lecturer and professor emeritus, DePaul University
Irish-born John Dominic Crossan is a professor emeritus in the religious studies department at DePaul University in Chicago. Between 1950 and 1969, he was a member of a 13th-century Roman Catholic religious order, the Servites, and remained an ordained priest from 1957 to 1969. He has delivered lectures to secular and lay audiences from Scandinavia to Australia to Japan to South Africa.
The On Faith panelist has authored 23 books and his writings have been translated into 11 languages. His work focuses on the historical Jesus, earliest Christianity and the historical Paul. Core titles include “The Historical Jesus,” “The Birth of Christianity” and “In Search of Paul,” co-written with archaeologist Jonathan L. Reed. Dr. Crossan’s next book, “God & Empire: Jesus Against Rome Then and Now,” is scheduled for publication in February.
The professor earned a doctor of divinity degree at St. Patrick’s College in Maynooth, Ireland and a humanities doctorate at Stetson University in Florida. The American Academy of Religion and DePaul and Stetson universities have recognized him with awards for scholarly excellence. His Web site is www.johndominiccrossan.com.
Close.
John Dominic Crossan
Lecturer and professor emeritus, DePaul University
Irish-born John Dominic Crossan is a professor emeritus in the religious studies department at DePaul University in Chicago. Between 1950 and 1969, he was a member of a 13th-century Roman Catholic religious order, the Servites, and remained an ordained priest from 1957 to 1969. He has delivered lectures to secular and lay audiences from Scandinavia to Australia to Japan to South Africa.
The On Faith panelist has authored 23 books and his writings have been translated into 11 languages.
more »
I know that in your "Birth of Christianity" you underline a distinct inconsistency in Paul's understanding of the Resurrection. You also note that Platonic dualism of body and soul is fundamentally dehuamanizing. I would suggest that the flesh -is- the spirit of a person. I understand that Paul was a Platonic dualist and has seemed to resort to this to explain his resurrection-body-ontology, yet how would one understand it giving up on the idea of Platonic dualism whilest maintaining the continuity of Jesus after the crucifixion?
One question I would like to ask Crossan (if you check these comments), if Jesus' resurrection was an experience in the lives of the disciples and not an "event" in the "life" of Jesus (whatever that could mean), then doesn't it mean that God's collision course with Empire was not real, it certainly appears to me that the earliest Christians believed that the resurrection (whatever that means) was a vindication of Jesus' life and ministry, sowould it have lost its theological implication if we see it only for what it "means" and not what it "is"? Perhaps I'm not explaining my question as well as I could... I hope you know what I'm trying to get at.
Mr. Mark,
Christians destroyed copies of the Illiad, Caesar's Commentaries, Thucydides Pelponnesian War? What was there motive? Caesars Commentaries, for example, wouldn't represent a strong alternative view of religion, would they?
Also, what sources would you recommend on this topic.Thanks in advance for your help.
Mr. Mark,
Christians destroyed copies of the Illiad, Caesar's Commentaries, Thucydides Pelponnesian War? What was there motive? Caesars Commentaries, for example, wouldn't represent a strong alternative view of religion, would they?
Also, what sources would you recommend on this topic.Thanks in advance for your help.
JSS often writes (actually, he does a cut-n-paste):
"There are over 5000 Greek manuscripts; over ten thousand Latin manuscripts and 9300 other manuscripts, as well as over thirty-six thousand citings in the writings of the early church fathers. As one of the greatest textual critics every, F.J.A. Hort, said, "In the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests, the test of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose writings."
Yet, for some reason, JSS always fails to mention that early Xians systematically and very effectively DESTROYED any and all manuscripts they could find that did not toe the Biblical line. Hell, they even destroyed many that toed part of the Biblical line. (Check out what the Xians were doing in this regard in the 4th-8th centuries).
I find it incredibly misleading on JSS' part to assert that these Biblical manuscript counts somehow add veracity to the stories they tell. How are we to know whether the early Xians destroyed MILLIONS of manuscripts that told a different story? So what if there are 5,000 of this and 36,000 citings of that when we have nothing to judge whether that is a large number from that age or not?
The only reason that an argument can be made that Biblical manuscripts outnumber all othe ancient manuscripts extant is because the Xians went about destroying every other ancient manuscript they could get their hands on.
Bill L,
I reluctantly agree with you on Dr Crossan. I’m always nervous when presuming to read someone else’s soul, but Crossan’s views are beyond the pale, defined either by the Bible, by the Roman Catholic catechism, or by any traditional Orthodox or Protestant creed. We are called upon to condemn false teaching. For example, in Galatians I Paul condemns the Judaizers.
“6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”
The Judaizers “only added to the Gospel. Crossan subtracts most of the gospel, which is much worse. The Judaizers and denominations cited above could all attest to the Apostles Creed (albeit with differences in interpretation). Even most liberal Christians could (with some difficulty) fit within the Apostles Creed. Based on his stated beliefs, it seems clear that Dr Crossan cannot.
Adam, read acts of the apostles where the apostles laid hands on Paul giving him authority {a bishiphoric {sp?} }-. Paul is the one to appointed Timothy to Bishop. Several times Paul appoints Bishops and directs people to pick bishops from among trustworthy men.
Peter sent Paul to the gentiles but he was still with authority over the churches he founded as evidenced by his Epistles.
Not all bishops were stay put in one city or area. There were bishops over countries and contenents for evangelistic reasons.
There's no evidence that Paul became an Overseer (episkopos) at any point in his career of service for Christ. He was an Apostle (Messenger/Apostolos) the whole time we have any record of his life - a travelling preacher, never a stay-put guardian of orthodoxy.
Timothy clearly had more authority than a mere episkopos as he was charged with appointing the right people to the job. But he was staying put in Crete to get the job done - what could we call him? An Archiepiskopos?
Greg, read history! The bishops I was refering to were Paul, Timothy among others who were being persecuted by imperial Rome!
Jesus' simple teaching is that he is the only way to salvation! He established a Church with teaching authority along with his own authority in things of morals and doctrine here on earth.
I always enjoy the work of Dr. Crossan and his insights into the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth.
A shudder goes up my spine as I read his words related to Jesus' stand against the imperial power of Rome. It seems to me that the imperial power of Amercia rivals the imperial power of Rome in Jesus' day and that if one claims to be a Christian she/he is called anew to sacrifice and to take-on the wounds of Jesus.
I cannot call myself a Christian and ignore the imperial actions of the United States around the world and especially in the Middle East. Instead of taking on the wounds we are still yelling, "give us Barabas!"
Thank you Dr. Crossan, the empire needs to hear the words of Jesus anew.
While Dr Crossan may have removed himself from the Catholic church he has anything but removed himself from the Christian church.
Those NT writing Bishops you speak of, were they only interested in getting out Jesus' message of radical love or were they more interested in giving Rome THE central place in religious authority?? I think the results speak for themselves.
Jesus' very simple message and simple ways for living them were perverted and distorted by a central authority whose main focus was on having control over people.
Greg, you're right about Christianity not being about the bible! The bible is Gods gift to his Church! It was written {the New Testament} by Catholic Bishops under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That is why the bible, infalible though it is, is the third leg of Gods word, not the all of His word. The bible, Holy Tradition {not tradition, small "t"}, and the Church make up the fullness of Gods truth on earth.
If the bible were somehow taken away or destroyed, the truth of God would still live on through His Body, the Church. Mr. Crossan has removed himself from the Church and speaks only blasphemies against God, not truth!
Regarding the Bible being the "Word of God", Marcus Borg said it best when he said that those were not "The WORDS of God " however. People said the words. Fallible, forgetful , wonderful and thoughtful people but people none the less.
God did not speak in English ( as all the Bibles people on here read are written in) and the English words that we often read were "Chosen" out of two or three "candidate' meanings of the original text.
Borg also comments on how many folks refuse to take Creation stories or Ressurection stories even mildly metaphorical yet when it comes to Revelations and the End of Times stories all of a sudden we are supposed to take some pastors word that certain things "mean" Russia, or other things "mean" airplanes, while believing that all this refers to a pre ordained time when "Good' folks will be removed from this horrible place and placed at Gods side. You cant take the whole book "as it is written" the entire way until the last few verses and suddenly change gears and start seeing the metaphors (and of course only ONE metaphor).
These stories are about as believable as the Muslim "Virgins in heaven " stories.
When are the close minded Chritians going to see that Christianity is NOT about the Bible. Christianity pre dates the Bible by many decades. To constantly reference the Bible when talking to atheists or "too liberal Christians" shows that your focus is wayyyyyy off. The Bible is a tool to understanding Christian experience not guide on how to be a Christian. To treat the Bible as an end point is similar to handing someone a map of Los Angales circa 1900 and asking someone to locate the Staples center on it.
The Bible is a map, not the end point (it is also a very old map)
You really need to call yourself "Biblicans" and leave the teachings of Jesus in more qualified hands like Dr Crossan.
I have a wild theory, what if it is true and exodus is a true stoay? What if God did make the promise about the land and his enemies are not good? What if those who deny him are wrong and find themselves opposing God? What if the myth is the deniers idea?
Comes down to faith doesn't it? Your facts are in reality theory since we weren't there and can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The thing about Christianity is that it is very offensive to a nonbeliever. Your problem is with God, not the believer!
FRIEND wrote:
"I'll take facts and theories 100% of the time.
"They are a rare commodity, especially when you throw in human nature. With the complex system we find ourselves in, we cannot get a complete picture without the study of myths and the stories of the world's people as these offer the insight into our past and thought processes which are both evil and good."
Agreed. The question comes in how much weight is given to myth as a way to understand where we are coming from as a species, and - more importantly - whether any weight at all should be given to myth as an influence on our future actions.
They are a rare commodity, especially when you throw in human nature. With the complex system we find ourselves in, we cannot get a complete picture without the study of myths and the stories of the world's people as these offer the insight into our past and thought processes which are both evil and good.
"If you read Exodus as a fact in history with no interpretations, then you are a religious fundamentalist."
Unfortunately, that's exactly how many people read the Exodus story - as fact. That leads to consequences of, well, Biblical proportions, such as believing the words in that song from the B'way play, Exodus - "this land is mine, God gave this land to me."
If you truly believe that you are god's chosen people and that god gave you a particular parcel of land, you are going to take a very different view of life than a person who believes there is no god, that there are no chosen people and god wasn't around to give any land to anyone, anywhere, any time.
If you wish to take myth as being the "primary" influence on your life, then, good luck. Personally, I'll go with the facts 95% of the time, with a bit of myth and legend thrown in just to make things interesting.
Dear Dominic,
Your claim: "So story and reality are dialectical for me and truth can only be found in the tensive interaction of their ongoing dialectic." may be a "truth". But I must admit I don't know what it means!
OK, so there's a tension between story and reality (got it). And then truth can be found only in the interaction (tension) between them. How then do I know when I run into truth? Seems like you have a "third-man" fallacy here.
I would propose a different approach: a distinction between "true to" and "true about" - the statements in story are thought of as true to the world while the statements made about reality are thought of as true about the world.
In short we need to remember that when we are talking about Hamlet or Yahweh we are talking about characters in a story and not people in the world.
Bob Lane
For me, truth comes in many forms in this absurd, complex life I find myself in.
Myth, through its use of symbolic images and metaphor, gives me insight into
a time and culture that we adopted when Rome became Christian. Ultimately, it gives
me insight into who I am.
In the Bhagavad-Gita, should we view the story from Arjuna’s point of view or his
relative enemies? I think that changes the truths that are in this holy book.
If I read this story as absolute truth and fact in history, I am missing the point of the story.
If you read Exodus as a fact in history with no interpretations, then you are
a religious fundamentalist.
A myth is not a lie but as Joseph Cambell would say, "A mythology is an organization
of symbolic images and narratives, metaphorical of the possibilities of human
experience and the fulfillment of a given culture at a given time".
And, of course, we should study ancient Egypt and their myths.
FRIEND wrote:
"Your secular American 21st century eyes are using the common vernacular definition of myth to trivialize an ancient story of deliverance in a condescending tone."
There is nothing trivial about myth or its inherent power to move people. But a myth is what it is, and that is not truth.
The ancient story of deliverance of which you speak is a racist screed that wouldn't be given any support were the roles of the protagonists in said myth reversed. The Bible wouldn't support any story that painted Yahweh's foes as the good guys. But the ultimate point is that the story is untrue - always has been, always will be.
What a sad commentary on a faith that not only relies upon but defends outrageous lies as being uplifting tales of deliverance.
Your secular American 21st century eyes are using the common vernacular definition of myth to trivialize an ancient story of deliverance in a condescending tone.
A fundamentalist uses the common definition of theory to trivialize the massive amount
of evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
The Exodus story boils down to a myth of the mouse that roared: a tiny group of nomads writes a fiction that shows their god defeating the mightiest power on the earth, accomplished with silly incantations, god-sent plagues and the god-approved murdering of children.
"You use the word religious myth like a fundementalist uses the scientific word theory."
Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths
So, by the dictionary definition, how does the Exodus story not satisfy #1 & 2 above? I'd say it fits the above definitions to a tee.
Your comparing my use of the word "myth" to the fundamentalist's use of the word "theory" is silly at best, willfully misleading at worse. Fundamentalists use the word theory pejoratively by assuming it can mean only conjecture or specualtion, while the scientific use of the word theory is something entirely different (ie: "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena...the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another").
Very good questions Mr. Mark. I'd like to know also. Seems logic is a very big part of the Bible that was left out. Don't even get me started on Revelations, or Adam and eve.
I just finished reading "God and Empire" and found the "conservative, liberal, radical Paul" reading particularly insightful. I have learned a great deal from your books and from your careful reading of texts. This current discussion resonates for me because of your insistence on the art of reading and the importance of metaphor.
I imagine myself asking this question of you: "Dominic, wouldn't the logical conclusion of your metaphoric reading of the Judeo-Christian texts be that "God" is really a metaphor for distributive justice and thus has the same ontological status as a Platonic Idea?"
"The first significant book of the Bible, Exodus is all about killing. Passover celebrates the killing of the "eldest son" of Pharaoh who just happened to be heir to the throne. You don't suppose the one "passed over" became or tried at least to become Pharaoh?"
How many believers of the Judeo-Christian faiths know that the exodus never happened? that the word "Pharoah" is a Jewish word, not an Egyptian word?
The exodus story is one of overt racism told entirely from the perspective of the Jews: the Egyptians were evil taskmasters, the Jews were god's chosen people, oppressed by an evil state that worshipped false gods. Yet, archaeology shows absolutely no proof that the Jews were slaves to the Egyptians, or that an exodus of 1.5 million Jews from Egypt ever took place. In fact, the Jewish population in Egypt as counted by the Bible would have exceeded that of the entire population of Egypt.
There's also the laughable belief that the Jews wandered in the desert for 40 years. Put aside the fact that there is no archaeological evidence (ie: garbage, pottery shards) to support such a wandering, one wonders how a trip that is only 10 days distance by foot could have taken 40 years to accomplish. If the Jews were going in circles, we should have 40 years worth of garbage to examine. Yet such proof isn't there.
The Exodus story boils down to a myth of the mouse that roared: a tiny group of nomads writes a fiction that shows their god defeating the mightiest power on the earth, accomplished with silly incantations, god-sent plagues and the god-approved murdering of children.
The Egyptians are painted as evil incarnate while the Jews are the poor suffering masses and the object of Egyptian evil. Rather than presenting the accomplishments of the Egytians for what archaeology and history prove they were - ie: great public works projects built BY and for the Egyptian people by themselves - their accomplishments are portrayed in the Bible as having been bought with the blood of slaves, thus justifying the wrath of an angry god upon an evil people while tainting the greatness of their accomplishments in the eys of the willfully uninformed.
Why does no one talk about this? Instead, we're treated to the yearly TV showing of "The Ten Commandments" debacle - an affront to our knowledge of history and our American belief in fair play?
Thanks to John D Crossan for taking the time to answer questions of the various bloggers on this thread. I wish that other columnists would do the same. Perhaps they don't have the strength of their convictions, as does M Crossan...or maybe they simply lack the stomach for a real discussion.
CTCNL, lies that cause people to believe are moral. So what's the problem with killing a few rivals to become infalible? Those rivals were into killing too?
The first significant book of the Bible, Exodus is all about killing. Passover celebrates the killing of the "eldest son" of Pharaoh who just happened to be heir to the throne. You don't suppose the one "passed over" became or tried at least to become Pharaoh?
The popes kill[ed] to gain the crown of the church. In Exodus the killing of the crown prince was to do what, "let my people go?" P.T.Barnum said....
“Now Rome which developed the Church of Dogma dared to add things which have scant basis in scripture like the Trinity, Individual priesthood, Auricular Confession, Transubstantiation, Infallibility, Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. None of these are present in scripture not can they be deduced. Matthew 16:18 was discovered to apply to the papacy by Damasus I who had over a hundred of his rival's supporter's killed to gain the bishopric of Rome. It is after this time that the phrase from Matthew is more and more centered on Rome. The bishops of Rome committed many crimes. The biggest one was to ascribe their malfeasance to the Holy Spirit. Still is.”
Anon: "although you find no reason to believe, you appear more open and trying to discern what, of anything we say, might possibly be real in the sense we claim is real."
This is about right - thanks for putting it into words for me. I am very interested in understanding how and what people believe.
If you want to continue the conversation, here’s another question: Why surrender? What made it so important for you to have your heart opened to God?
E favorite -- "...I'm afraid I'm no closer to understanding how God speaks to us these days. The holy spirit sounds pretty hard to pin down."
You're absolutely right, the Holy Spirit cannot be pinned down, moves as he wishes, no discernable predictable way. He reveals himself as he wishes when he wishes to me too.
I hope I'm not wrong if I say that although you find no reason to believe, you appear more open and trying to discern what, of anything we say, might possibly be real in the sense we claim is real.
In my experience I faced perhaps just such a wall at one point, at which I surrendered, and basically prayed or opened my heart daily to whoeever God might be, without expectation. Some time after that point He appeared to become evident...and then Christ became rather fully and unmistakably evident. I cannot say that is how it necessarily happens with most or even a few Catholics, but that is how it happened with me.
Anon - I appreciate you getting back to me, but I'm afraid I'm no closer to understanding how God speaks to us these days. The holy spirit sounds pretty hard to pin down.
GaryD - you're right - I should have said all biblical scholars who are not Christian apologists think that the NT was not written by eyewitnesses. And they are definitely in the majority. They base their determinations on analysis and scholarly methods, like people any other academic field. Wanting something to be true, or having faith that it's true doesn't make it a fact.
Dear Professor John Dominic Crossan:
Finding God is a breeaze, the wind speaking to us as it passes through the trees. Seeing God is impossible, unless God is clouded by dust and debris of course. Even then we are only seeing and hearing God at work and not actually seeing God. So I'm left to wonder about those who claim to have seen God, St Stephen being no exception to that rule. Really odd case, St Stephen laughing, telling jokes and seeing an invisible God at a time when other people being baked to death only screamed. St Stephen is the one that said, "you can turn me over now, I'm done on this side?"
Don't you ever wonder where so much detailed information came from? Who was there writing all that down when Stephen had visions of God?
Is there any factual history in the Bible and other sacred writings or is it all from invisible people having visions of an invisible God? Don't you find it odd how so much of the writing of those unknown people matches the pictures "on the wall" in ancient Egypt, with a coat or two of Greek mythology? They couldn't read the writing but they could look at the pictures, kinda like, you know...
Dear BGONE:
In the NT Jesus is usually "seated" to the right of God. And, as I said, that is court-protocol's position for the heir apparent. So we know what that metaphor claims about Jesus.
But, there is one case where he is stading in that same location.
See, for example, Acts 7:55-56: “But filled with the Holy Spirit, he [Stephen] gazed into heaven and saw the g' he said, 'I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!'”
Jesus, presumaby, arose from his usual seated position to stand up in honor of Stephen's martyrdom and/or to welcome him into heaven. That is why I cited both positions.
There is, by the way, only one thing sadder and sillier than taking metaphor literally and that is opposing it literally.
Dominic
PS If Jesus is to the right of God, then God is to the left of Jesus. In other words, to find God, first find Jesus and the keep heading left ....
Well professor, He's either one or the other, seated or standing. The picture shows Him seated, as I'm sure you were taught at Cahtolic school, "at the rith hand (side) of the father and the 12 Apostles/Disciples are seated to His right."
Now, whatever gave someone an idea like that? Try the PICTURE from the ancient Egyptian "Book of the Dead" showing the trinity followed by 'some' Pharaoh followed by twelve figures. You don't suppose....
Wanna see that picture? Try http://www.hoax-buster.org around the middle of the first page. And it's labled!!!
BILL L, you're all confused about Satan. Satan is God's right hand man, a crane headed humanoid never pictured with wings that does the SECOND Judgment, the judgment of soul (record). He adminsiters the lie detector test to the dead after they get their new bodies, in the underworld (beneath the earth) on the nebol bridge. Satan records sins on their souls. The "winged" critter you're probably thinking about is Lucifer, the fallen angel, Lord and master of hell. You need to study the hoax buster web site and get educated.
Dear Bob:
In answer to your direct question, please reread the preceding sentence before those three master-claims in The Dark Interval of 1975. It reads:
"I must confess immediately that I can no longer believe in any of them, let alone in the combinations of all three."
By removing the context, you made me agree with them--but those claims were cited in order to criticize them.
My own sensibility is absolutely and irrevocably dialectical--like two sides of a coin that can be distinguished but not separated (one cannot even see two sides of a coin at the same time). So story and reality are dialectical for me and truth can only be found in the tensive interaction of their ongoing dialectic.
Dominic
GaryD: "What differences there are between the four Gospels can be chocked up to the fact that different eyewitnesses are recording them."
That's one possibility. You don't and can't know that for certain. Meanwhile, biblical scholars who study ancient writings, culture and history, don't think that's the case. They can't know for certain that their views are completely accurate,either but they reach their determinations based on analysis, not a simple assertion.
1. "The first great master claim is one which makes a distinction between art (or faith, or imagination) and science (or fact, or reason) and then postulates for each a different language and a different destiny. Having established this complete disjunction, the claim then situates one term in hierarchical supremacy over the other. In our time, it is clear that for most people the ascendancy is that of science over art."
2. "The second master claim is that of evolutionary progress - the claim that, if not every day in every way, then at least some days and in some ways we are getting better and better. This is not taken merely as a story, a possible and most interesting way of seeing it, but as objective and realistic fact, open and obvious to the unprejudiced viewer."
3. "The third master claim is the postulate that there is an external reality out there, extrinsic to our vision, our imagination, and our intellect and that we are gaining objective knowledge and disciplined control over this extramental reality."
Do you still hold to those claims? If so, don't you have to give up on truth? If there is no external reality for our statements to correspond to then it seems we are stuck in story with no way to determine which story is true or closer to true.
There is no contemporary historical evidence that Jesus existed, at least as one individual. If you ask most Christians what the core of their beliefs was they would cite things like baptism, marriage, Christmas and Easter that are ceremonies borrowed from other religions and cults, Mithraism, the cults of Isis and Sol Invicta etc.
Interestingly Mr Crossan seems to be repeating an old heresy, Arianism, that denied the co divinity of Jesus or Homoousios as I think it was called. Read the excellent book The Great Heresies
By Hilaire Belloc for more information. You can find it online for nothing. It is a staunch defence of Nicene Christianity but very informative and well written.
If God created or begot Jesus then, as the Arian argument runs he must be inferior to him. As the early church patriarchs realised hijacking the idea of ressurection from the cult of Isis and holding out the promise of it to believers would keep the money rolling in. They're still running the same old con now and people are still falling for it.
Adam, What disagreements among them are there that matter?
The list of women who went to the tomb on Easter Sunday? Sorry bad idea. Is it necessary for a brief history of the trans Missippi West that we List the names of every member of the Lewis and Clark Expedition or would it be enough to just list The names of Lewis and Clark and might not different historians list different additional names of party members without being in actual disagreement with each other?
What differences there are between the four Gospels can be chocked up to the fact that different eyewitnesses are recording them.
Anon – you say, “How do we know it is perfect? By the presence of the Holy Spirit, who fills us with peace, joy; who helps us discern notwithstanding our limitations How do we know it is perfect? By the presence of the Holy Spirit, who fills us with peace, joy; who helps us discern notwithstanding our limitations.”
Could you explain where the Holy Spirit is? How it communicates? How you know it “fills us with peace,” etc.? Thanks
Bill L, regarding how we know [galaxies] “weren't created on computers” considering that “we haven't been there to see for ourselves.”
Humans have been observing the universe for millennia, long before computers, and thanks to constantly improving technology, our knowledge about it continues to change and increase. We have even traveled to the moon – our closest neighbor in our galaxy. This openness to new knowledge is in startling contrast to our treatment of the ancient stories in the Bible. For example, many Christians still believe in Jesus’ bodily ascension in heaven even though we now know a human body would burn up in the stratosphere and that heaven is not a physical place right on the other side of the clouds, as our ancestors thought.
The Magesterium? You mean those old "celibate"
white European Catholic priests who have used the many embellishments of the NT (e.g. Trinity, Individual priesthood, Auricular Confession, Transubstantiation, Infallibility, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Atonement, and 24/7 Filicide) to keep us "pew peasants" in a cloud of guilt and Dark Age "voodoo" for the last 1700 years?
Not exactly, I mean the Magesterium of the Church, not any one minister or priest.
God came to Earth once, does he need to come to each generation? Faith is that which is believed, yet not yet seen. Sort of like existence of distant galaxies or gravity! We see the affects of gravity but can't see or touch, and we see pictures of galaxies, but how do we know they weren't created on computers? We haven't been there to see for ourselves.
Anonymous above writes well on a personal level! We all understand as we are able, yet the Magesterium is the instrument of the Holy Spirit on a teaching level.
"...does that imply that everyone's interpretation of the Bible is accurate and that what priests or ministers say is directly from God and should be treated as God talking to us?"
No, it does not imply that. God speaks yet there is also a receiving end, us. The receiving end is limited, big time. Accordingly, we receive imperfectly, although what has been given is perfect.
How do we know it is perfect? By the presence of the Holy Spirit, who fills us with peace, joy; who helps us discern notwithstanding our limitations.
Bill L, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this: "through the bible and his Holy Church. He told his disciples that "those who listen to you listen to me, and those who reject you reject me and He who sent me"."
Are you saying that God speaks to us through the Bible and also speaks to us through priests and ministers?
If so, does that imply that everyone's interpretation of the Bible is accurate and that what priests or ministers say is directly from God and should be treated as God talking to us?
A harmonisation is the opposite of an answer - it assumes the Gospels are in utter agreeance, which they aren't. The Diatessaron was written because of the disagreements, as a glossing over of the internal textual arguments. It's simple denial to naively combine the stories and then claim they're in "harmony". Perhaps they're telling the story of one event from several points of view - but they sure don't read that way. The disagreements are real and they have to be answered.
That's why Crossan has been led to his current minimalist Christianity - a personal quest using a historical methodology to find the Gospel free of 1st century Church-Making and mythology. Whether Crossan has succeeded or not is an individual decision - as I've said I respectfully disagree with some of his basic claims - but it's disingenuous to say he's not a Christian because he's left behind someone else's pet dogmas.
And AFAIK he doesn't deny the Trinity - read his "statement of faith" in "The Birth of Christianity" to see what he does believe. What he does reject is mistaking mythological language for real factual data. He might have a metaphysical myopia - I certainly think so - but he is honest in his conclusions and application of his methodological tools. And I think he really does believe.
MARC HALO writes: "I'm still glad He died though, for making up the silly rules in the first place."
Marc, you hate the wrong person. Jesus said the rules had been made for humans, not humans for the rules. Wherever a 'rule' injures the dignity or true good of humans, by Jesus's standards, it is wrong...and he was killed by people upset
All Comments (125)
I know that in your "Birth of Christianity" you underline a distinct inconsistency in Paul's understanding of the Resurrection. You also note that Platonic dualism of body and soul is fundamentally dehuamanizing. I would suggest that the flesh -is- the spirit of a person. I understand that Paul was a Platonic dualist and has seemed to resort to this to explain his resurrection-body-ontology, yet how would one understand it giving up on the idea of Platonic dualism whilest maintaining the continuity of Jesus after the crucifixion?
December 23, 2007 11:09 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 23, 2007 11:09
One question I would like to ask Crossan (if you check these comments), if Jesus' resurrection was an experience in the lives of the disciples and not an "event" in the "life" of Jesus (whatever that could mean), then doesn't it mean that God's collision course with Empire was not real, it certainly appears to me that the earliest Christians believed that the resurrection (whatever that means) was a vindication of Jesus' life and ministry, sowould it have lost its theological implication if we see it only for what it "means" and not what it "is"? Perhaps I'm not explaining my question as well as I could... I hope you know what I'm trying to get at.
June 25, 2007 11:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 25, 2007 23:49
Mr.Mark, you are, for the most part, more full of #*^ than a christmas turkey!
If you can site references that are legit, I'll gladly take it back.
April 16, 2007 7:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 16, 2007 19:07
Mr. Mark,
Christians destroyed copies of the Illiad, Caesar's Commentaries, Thucydides Pelponnesian War? What was there motive? Caesars Commentaries, for example, wouldn't represent a strong alternative view of religion, would they?
Also, what sources would you recommend on this topic.Thanks in advance for your help.
Reformed Christian
April 16, 2007 4:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 16, 2007 16:50
Mr. Mark,
Christians destroyed copies of the Illiad, Caesar's Commentaries, Thucydides Pelponnesian War? What was there motive? Caesars Commentaries, for example, wouldn't represent a strong alternative view of religion, would they?
Also, what sources would you recommend on this topic.Thanks in advance for your help.
Reformed Christian
April 16, 2007 4:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 16, 2007 16:49
JSS often writes (actually, he does a cut-n-paste):
"There are over 5000 Greek manuscripts; over ten thousand Latin manuscripts and 9300 other manuscripts, as well as over thirty-six thousand citings in the writings of the early church fathers. As one of the greatest textual critics every, F.J.A. Hort, said, "In the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests, the test of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose writings."
Yet, for some reason, JSS always fails to mention that early Xians systematically and very effectively DESTROYED any and all manuscripts they could find that did not toe the Biblical line. Hell, they even destroyed many that toed part of the Biblical line. (Check out what the Xians were doing in this regard in the 4th-8th centuries).
I find it incredibly misleading on JSS' part to assert that these Biblical manuscript counts somehow add veracity to the stories they tell. How are we to know whether the early Xians destroyed MILLIONS of manuscripts that told a different story? So what if there are 5,000 of this and 36,000 citings of that when we have nothing to judge whether that is a large number from that age or not?
The only reason that an argument can be made that Biblical manuscripts outnumber all othe ancient manuscripts extant is because the Xians went about destroying every other ancient manuscript they could get their hands on.
April 16, 2007 2:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 16, 2007 14:00
Bill L,
I reluctantly agree with you on Dr Crossan. I’m always nervous when presuming to read someone else’s soul, but Crossan’s views are beyond the pale, defined either by the Bible, by the Roman Catholic catechism, or by any traditional Orthodox or Protestant creed. We are called upon to condemn false teaching. For example, in Galatians I Paul condemns the Judaizers.
“6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”
The Judaizers “only added to the Gospel. Crossan subtracts most of the gospel, which is much worse. The Judaizers and denominations cited above could all attest to the Apostles Creed (albeit with differences in interpretation). Even most liberal Christians could (with some difficulty) fit within the Apostles Creed. Based on his stated beliefs, it seems clear that Dr Crossan cannot.
Reformed Christian
April 15, 2007 2:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 15, 2007 14:29
Adam, read acts of the apostles where the apostles laid hands on Paul giving him authority {a bishiphoric {sp?} }-. Paul is the one to appointed Timothy to Bishop. Several times Paul appoints Bishops and directs people to pick bishops from among trustworthy men.
Peter sent Paul to the gentiles but he was still with authority over the churches he founded as evidenced by his Epistles.
Not all bishops were stay put in one city or area. There were bishops over countries and contenents for evangelistic reasons.
April 15, 2007 8:10 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 15, 2007 08:10
Bill L
There's no evidence that Paul became an Overseer (episkopos) at any point in his career of service for Christ. He was an Apostle (Messenger/Apostolos) the whole time we have any record of his life - a travelling preacher, never a stay-put guardian of orthodoxy.
Timothy clearly had more authority than a mere episkopos as he was charged with appointing the right people to the job. But he was staying put in Crete to get the job done - what could we call him? An Archiepiskopos?
April 14, 2007 10:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 14, 2007 22:42
Greg, read history! The bishops I was refering to were Paul, Timothy among others who were being persecuted by imperial Rome!
Jesus' simple teaching is that he is the only way to salvation! He established a Church with teaching authority along with his own authority in things of morals and doctrine here on earth.
April 14, 2007 4:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 14, 2007 16:07
I always enjoy the work of Dr. Crossan and his insights into the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth.
A shudder goes up my spine as I read his words related to Jesus' stand against the imperial power of Rome. It seems to me that the imperial power of Amercia rivals the imperial power of Rome in Jesus' day and that if one claims to be a Christian she/he is called anew to sacrifice and to take-on the wounds of Jesus.
I cannot call myself a Christian and ignore the imperial actions of the United States around the world and especially in the Middle East. Instead of taking on the wounds we are still yelling, "give us Barabas!"
Thank you Dr. Crossan, the empire needs to hear the words of Jesus anew.
April 14, 2007 3:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 14, 2007 15:00
Bill,
While Dr Crossan may have removed himself from the Catholic church he has anything but removed himself from the Christian church.
Those NT writing Bishops you speak of, were they only interested in getting out Jesus' message of radical love or were they more interested in giving Rome THE central place in religious authority?? I think the results speak for themselves.
Jesus' very simple message and simple ways for living them were perverted and distorted by a central authority whose main focus was on having control over people.
peace
April 14, 2007 9:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 14, 2007 09:27
Greg, you're right about Christianity not being about the bible! The bible is Gods gift to his Church! It was written {the New Testament} by Catholic Bishops under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That is why the bible, infalible though it is, is the third leg of Gods word, not the all of His word. The bible, Holy Tradition {not tradition, small "t"}, and the Church make up the fullness of Gods truth on earth.
If the bible were somehow taken away or destroyed, the truth of God would still live on through His Body, the Church. Mr. Crossan has removed himself from the Church and speaks only blasphemies against God, not truth!
April 13, 2007 9:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 13, 2007 21:30
Regarding the Bible being the "Word of God", Marcus Borg said it best when he said that those were not "The WORDS of God " however. People said the words. Fallible, forgetful , wonderful and thoughtful people but people none the less.
God did not speak in English ( as all the Bibles people on here read are written in) and the English words that we often read were "Chosen" out of two or three "candidate' meanings of the original text.
Borg also comments on how many folks refuse to take Creation stories or Ressurection stories even mildly metaphorical yet when it comes to Revelations and the End of Times stories all of a sudden we are supposed to take some pastors word that certain things "mean" Russia, or other things "mean" airplanes, while believing that all this refers to a pre ordained time when "Good' folks will be removed from this horrible place and placed at Gods side. You cant take the whole book "as it is written" the entire way until the last few verses and suddenly change gears and start seeing the metaphors (and of course only ONE metaphor).
These stories are about as believable as the Muslim "Virgins in heaven " stories.
Peace
April 12, 2007 11:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 12, 2007 11:16
When are the close minded Chritians going to see that Christianity is NOT about the Bible. Christianity pre dates the Bible by many decades. To constantly reference the Bible when talking to atheists or "too liberal Christians" shows that your focus is wayyyyyy off. The Bible is a tool to understanding Christian experience not guide on how to be a Christian. To treat the Bible as an end point is similar to handing someone a map of Los Angales circa 1900 and asking someone to locate the Staples center on it.
The Bible is a map, not the end point (it is also a very old map)
You really need to call yourself "Biblicans" and leave the teachings of Jesus in more qualified hands like Dr Crossan.
Peace
April 12, 2007 10:57 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 12, 2007 10:57
I have a wild theory, what if it is true and exodus is a true stoay? What if God did make the promise about the land and his enemies are not good? What if those who deny him are wrong and find themselves opposing God? What if the myth is the deniers idea?
Comes down to faith doesn't it? Your facts are in reality theory since we weren't there and can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The thing about Christianity is that it is very offensive to a nonbeliever. Your problem is with God, not the believer!
April 11, 2007 5:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 11, 2007 17:06
Fair enough, Mr Mark.
Take care.
April 11, 2007 1:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 11, 2007 13:32
FRIEND wrote:
"I'll take facts and theories 100% of the time.
"They are a rare commodity, especially when you throw in human nature. With the complex system we find ourselves in, we cannot get a complete picture without the study of myths and the stories of the world's people as these offer the insight into our past and thought processes which are both evil and good."
Agreed. The question comes in how much weight is given to myth as a way to understand where we are coming from as a species, and - more importantly - whether any weight at all should be given to myth as an influence on our future actions.
April 11, 2007 12:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 11, 2007 12:50
I'll take facts and theories 100% of the time.
They are a rare commodity, especially when you throw in human nature. With the complex system we find ourselves in, we cannot get a complete picture without the study of myths and the stories of the world's people as these offer the insight into our past and thought processes which are both evil and good.
April 11, 2007 12:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 11, 2007 12:19
FRIEND wrote:
"If you read Exodus as a fact in history with no interpretations, then you are a religious fundamentalist."
Unfortunately, that's exactly how many people read the Exodus story - as fact. That leads to consequences of, well, Biblical proportions, such as believing the words in that song from the B'way play, Exodus - "this land is mine, God gave this land to me."
If you truly believe that you are god's chosen people and that god gave you a particular parcel of land, you are going to take a very different view of life than a person who believes there is no god, that there are no chosen people and god wasn't around to give any land to anyone, anywhere, any time.
If you wish to take myth as being the "primary" influence on your life, then, good luck. Personally, I'll go with the facts 95% of the time, with a bit of myth and legend thrown in just to make things interesting.
April 11, 2007 12:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 11, 2007 12:01
Dear Dominic,
Your claim: "So story and reality are dialectical for me and truth can only be found in the tensive interaction of their ongoing dialectic." may be a "truth". But I must admit I don't know what it means!
OK, so there's a tension between story and reality (got it). And then truth can be found only in the interaction (tension) between them. How then do I know when I run into truth? Seems like you have a "third-man" fallacy here.
I would propose a different approach: a distinction between "true to" and "true about" - the statements in story are thought of as true to the world while the statements made about reality are thought of as true about the world.
In short we need to remember that when we are talking about Hamlet or Yahweh we are talking about characters in a story and not people in the world.
Bob Lane
April 11, 2007 10:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 11, 2007 10:43
Mr Mark:
For me, truth comes in many forms in this absurd, complex life I find myself in.
Myth, through its use of symbolic images and metaphor, gives me insight into
a time and culture that we adopted when Rome became Christian. Ultimately, it gives
me insight into who I am.
In the Bhagavad-Gita, should we view the story from Arjuna’s point of view or his
relative enemies? I think that changes the truths that are in this holy book.
If I read this story as absolute truth and fact in history, I am missing the point of the story.
If you read Exodus as a fact in history with no interpretations, then you are
a religious fundamentalist.
A myth is not a lie but as Joseph Cambell would say, "A mythology is an organization
of symbolic images and narratives, metaphorical of the possibilities of human
experience and the fulfillment of a given culture at a given time".
And, of course, we should study ancient Egypt and their myths.
April 11, 2007 9:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 11, 2007 09:41
FRIEND wrote:
"Your secular American 21st century eyes are using the common vernacular definition of myth to trivialize an ancient story of deliverance in a condescending tone."
There is nothing trivial about myth or its inherent power to move people. But a myth is what it is, and that is not truth.
The ancient story of deliverance of which you speak is a racist screed that wouldn't be given any support were the roles of the protagonists in said myth reversed. The Bible wouldn't support any story that painted Yahweh's foes as the good guys. But the ultimate point is that the story is untrue - always has been, always will be.
What a sad commentary on a faith that not only relies upon but defends outrageous lies as being uplifting tales of deliverance.
April 10, 2007 10:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 22:43
Your secular American 21st century eyes are using the common vernacular definition of myth to trivialize an ancient story of deliverance in a condescending tone.
A fundamentalist uses the common definition of theory to trivialize the massive amount
of evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
April 10, 2007 4:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 16:41
Sorry, I thought you said:
The Exodus story boils down to a myth of the mouse that roared: a tiny group of nomads writes a fiction that shows their god defeating the mightiest power on the earth, accomplished with silly incantations, god-sent plagues and the god-approved murdering of children.
April 10, 2007 4:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 16:12
FRIEND writes:
"Mr Mark:
"You use the word religious myth like a fundementalist uses the scientific word theory."
Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/myth
So, by the dictionary definition, how does the Exodus story not satisfy #1 & 2 above? I'd say it fits the above definitions to a tee.
Your comparing my use of the word "myth" to the fundamentalist's use of the word "theory" is silly at best, willfully misleading at worse. Fundamentalists use the word theory pejoratively by assuming it can mean only conjecture or specualtion, while the scientific use of the word theory is something entirely different (ie: "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena...the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another").
Bad analogy. Wanna try again?
April 10, 2007 3:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 15:47
Mr Mark:
You use the word religious myth like a fundementalist uses the scientific word theory.
April 10, 2007 3:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 15:28
Very good questions Mr. Mark. I'd like to know also. Seems logic is a very big part of the Bible that was left out. Don't even get me started on Revelations, or Adam and eve.
April 10, 2007 3:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 15:14
E favorite -- "Why surrender? What made it so important for you to have your heart opened to God?."
The world seemed irremediably and almost absolutely contaminated with evil, notwithstanding beauty. I needed to know if this was in fact 'it'.
April 10, 2007 2:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 14:50
Dear Dominic,
I just finished reading "God and Empire" and found the "conservative, liberal, radical Paul" reading particularly insightful. I have learned a great deal from your books and from your careful reading of texts. This current discussion resonates for me because of your insistence on the art of reading and the importance of metaphor.
I imagine myself asking this question of you: "Dominic, wouldn't the logical conclusion of your metaphoric reading of the Judeo-Christian texts be that "God" is really a metaphor for distributive justice and thus has the same ontological status as a Platonic Idea?"
Bob
April 10, 2007 2:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 14:19
BGone wrote:
"The first significant book of the Bible, Exodus is all about killing. Passover celebrates the killing of the "eldest son" of Pharaoh who just happened to be heir to the throne. You don't suppose the one "passed over" became or tried at least to become Pharaoh?"
How many believers of the Judeo-Christian faiths know that the exodus never happened? that the word "Pharoah" is a Jewish word, not an Egyptian word?
The exodus story is one of overt racism told entirely from the perspective of the Jews: the Egyptians were evil taskmasters, the Jews were god's chosen people, oppressed by an evil state that worshipped false gods. Yet, archaeology shows absolutely no proof that the Jews were slaves to the Egyptians, or that an exodus of 1.5 million Jews from Egypt ever took place. In fact, the Jewish population in Egypt as counted by the Bible would have exceeded that of the entire population of Egypt.
There's also the laughable belief that the Jews wandered in the desert for 40 years. Put aside the fact that there is no archaeological evidence (ie: garbage, pottery shards) to support such a wandering, one wonders how a trip that is only 10 days distance by foot could have taken 40 years to accomplish. If the Jews were going in circles, we should have 40 years worth of garbage to examine. Yet such proof isn't there.
The Exodus story boils down to a myth of the mouse that roared: a tiny group of nomads writes a fiction that shows their god defeating the mightiest power on the earth, accomplished with silly incantations, god-sent plagues and the god-approved murdering of children.
The Egyptians are painted as evil incarnate while the Jews are the poor suffering masses and the object of Egyptian evil. Rather than presenting the accomplishments of the Egytians for what archaeology and history prove they were - ie: great public works projects built BY and for the Egyptian people by themselves - their accomplishments are portrayed in the Bible as having been bought with the blood of slaves, thus justifying the wrath of an angry god upon an evil people while tainting the greatness of their accomplishments in the eys of the willfully uninformed.
Why does no one talk about this? Instead, we're treated to the yearly TV showing of "The Ten Commandments" debacle - an affront to our knowledge of history and our American belief in fair play?
Go figure.
April 10, 2007 1:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 13:54
john Dominic Crossan,
"PS If Jesus is to the right of God, then God is to the left of Jesus. In other words, to find God, first find Jesus and the keep heading left ...."
I like that :-)
April 10, 2007 1:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 13:15
Thank you for your time, Professor John Dominic Crossan.
April 10, 2007 12:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 12:48
Thanks to John D Crossan for taking the time to answer questions of the various bloggers on this thread. I wish that other columnists would do the same. Perhaps they don't have the strength of their convictions, as does M Crossan...or maybe they simply lack the stomach for a real discussion.
Again, thanks.
April 10, 2007 12:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 12:10
CTCNL, lies that cause people to believe are moral. So what's the problem with killing a few rivals to become infalible? Those rivals were into killing too?
The first significant book of the Bible, Exodus is all about killing. Passover celebrates the killing of the "eldest son" of Pharaoh who just happened to be heir to the throne. You don't suppose the one "passed over" became or tried at least to become Pharaoh?
The popes kill[ed] to gain the crown of the church. In Exodus the killing of the crown prince was to do what, "let my people go?" P.T.Barnum said....
April 10, 2007 11:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 11:50
A synopsis concerning some Catholic dogma:
“Now Rome which developed the Church of Dogma dared to add things which have scant basis in scripture like the Trinity, Individual priesthood, Auricular Confession, Transubstantiation, Infallibility, Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. None of these are present in scripture not can they be deduced. Matthew 16:18 was discovered to apply to the papacy by Damasus I who had over a hundred of his rival's supporter's killed to gain the bishopric of Rome. It is after this time that the phrase from Matthew is more and more centered on Rome. The bishops of Rome committed many crimes. The biggest one was to ascribe their malfeasance to the Holy Spirit. Still is.”
April 10, 2007 10:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 10:34
Anon: "although you find no reason to believe, you appear more open and trying to discern what, of anything we say, might possibly be real in the sense we claim is real."
This is about right - thanks for putting it into words for me. I am very interested in understanding how and what people believe.
If you want to continue the conversation, here’s another question: Why surrender? What made it so important for you to have your heart opened to God?
April 10, 2007 9:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 09:37
E favorite -- "...I'm afraid I'm no closer to understanding how God speaks to us these days. The holy spirit sounds pretty hard to pin down."
You're absolutely right, the Holy Spirit cannot be pinned down, moves as he wishes, no discernable predictable way. He reveals himself as he wishes when he wishes to me too.
I hope I'm not wrong if I say that although you find no reason to believe, you appear more open and trying to discern what, of anything we say, might possibly be real in the sense we claim is real.
In my experience I faced perhaps just such a wall at one point, at which I surrendered, and basically prayed or opened my heart daily to whoeever God might be, without expectation. Some time after that point He appeared to become evident...and then Christ became rather fully and unmistakably evident. I cannot say that is how it necessarily happens with most or even a few Catholics, but that is how it happened with me.
April 10, 2007 12:19 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 10, 2007 00:19
Anon - I appreciate you getting back to me, but I'm afraid I'm no closer to understanding how God speaks to us these days. The holy spirit sounds pretty hard to pin down.
GaryD - you're right - I should have said all biblical scholars who are not Christian apologists think that the NT was not written by eyewitnesses. And they are definitely in the majority. They base their determinations on analysis and scholarly methods, like people any other academic field. Wanting something to be true, or having faith that it's true doesn't make it a fact.
April 9, 2007 9:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 21:50
Dear Professor John Dominic Crossan:
Finding God is a breeaze, the wind speaking to us as it passes through the trees. Seeing God is impossible, unless God is clouded by dust and debris of course. Even then we are only seeing and hearing God at work and not actually seeing God. So I'm left to wonder about those who claim to have seen God, St Stephen being no exception to that rule. Really odd case, St Stephen laughing, telling jokes and seeing an invisible God at a time when other people being baked to death only screamed. St Stephen is the one that said, "you can turn me over now, I'm done on this side?"
Don't you ever wonder where so much detailed information came from? Who was there writing all that down when Stephen had visions of God?
Is there any factual history in the Bible and other sacred writings or is it all from invisible people having visions of an invisible God? Don't you find it odd how so much of the writing of those unknown people matches the pictures "on the wall" in ancient Egypt, with a coat or two of Greek mythology? They couldn't read the writing but they could look at the pictures, kinda like, you know...
April 9, 2007 7:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 19:05
E- Favorite -- One more point.
Jesus' sacramental presence was instituted by Jesus according to 3 of the earliest gospels and Paul.
April 9, 2007 4:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 16:52
E favorite you ask: "Could you explain where the Holy Spirit is? How it communicates? How you know it “fills us with peace,” etc.?"
I don't know.
All I know is that the presence I feel in his sacramental presence is not of this world and is most holy.
April 9, 2007 4:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 16:46
E favorite you ask: "Could you explain where the Holy Spirit is? How it communicates? How you know it “fills us with peace,” etc.?"
I don't know.
All I know is that the presence I in his sacramental presence is not of this world and is most holy.
April 9, 2007 4:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 16:45
Dear BGONE:
In the NT Jesus is usually "seated" to the right of God. And, as I said, that is court-protocol's position for the heir apparent. So we know what that metaphor claims about Jesus.
But, there is one case where he is stading in that same location.
See, for example, Acts 7:55-56: “But filled with the Holy Spirit, he [Stephen] gazed into heaven and saw the g' he said, 'I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!'”
Jesus, presumaby, arose from his usual seated position to stand up in honor of Stephen's martyrdom and/or to welcome him into heaven. That is why I cited both positions.
There is, by the way, only one thing sadder and sillier than taking metaphor literally and that is opposing it literally.
Dominic
PS If Jesus is to the right of God, then God is to the left of Jesus. In other words, to find God, first find Jesus and the keep heading left ....
April 9, 2007 4:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 16:23
E. favorite:
You left out a very important word here. That word is 'some'. As in 'some scholars' and I might add that those scholars are a distinct minority.
Ex Fr. Crossan and the Jesus seminarians aren't the only Christian scholars still working today and much of what they have said has been rebutted.
April 9, 2007 3:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 15:44
Well professor, He's either one or the other, seated or standing. The picture shows Him seated, as I'm sure you were taught at Cahtolic school, "at the rith hand (side) of the father and the 12 Apostles/Disciples are seated to His right."
Now, whatever gave someone an idea like that? Try the PICTURE from the ancient Egyptian "Book of the Dead" showing the trinity followed by 'some' Pharaoh followed by twelve figures. You don't suppose....
Wanna see that picture? Try http://www.hoax-buster.org around the middle of the first page. And it's labled!!!
BILL L, you're all confused about Satan. Satan is God's right hand man, a crane headed humanoid never pictured with wings that does the SECOND Judgment, the judgment of soul (record). He adminsiters the lie detector test to the dead after they get their new bodies, in the underworld (beneath the earth) on the nebol bridge. Satan records sins on their souls. The "winged" critter you're probably thinking about is Lucifer, the fallen angel, Lord and master of hell. You need to study the hoax buster web site and get educated.
April 9, 2007 3:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 15:18
Thanks for the correction, Professor Crossan! I must go back to the text.
April 9, 2007 2:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 14:41
Get him Mr. Crossan! Get him!
April 9, 2007 2:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 14:22
Dear Bob:
In answer to your direct question, please reread the preceding sentence before those three master-claims in The Dark Interval of 1975. It reads:
"I must confess immediately that I can no longer believe in any of them, let alone in the combinations of all three."
By removing the context, you made me agree with them--but those claims were cited in order to criticize them.
My own sensibility is absolutely and irrevocably dialectical--like two sides of a coin that can be distinguished but not separated (one cannot even see two sides of a coin at the same time). So story and reality are dialectical for me and truth can only be found in the tensive interaction of their ongoing dialectic.
Dominic
April 9, 2007 2:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 14:20
GaryD: "What differences there are between the four Gospels can be chocked up to the fact that different eyewitnesses are recording them."
That's one possibility. You don't and can't know that for certain. Meanwhile, biblical scholars who study ancient writings, culture and history, don't think that's the case. They can't know for certain that their views are completely accurate,either but they reach their determinations based on analysis, not a simple assertion.
April 9, 2007 10:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 10:56
Professor Crossan,in The Dark Interval you write:
1. "The first great master claim is one which makes a distinction between art (or faith, or imagination) and science (or fact, or reason) and then postulates for each a different language and a different destiny. Having established this complete disjunction, the claim then situates one term in hierarchical supremacy over the other. In our time, it is clear that for most people the ascendancy is that of science over art."
2. "The second master claim is that of evolutionary progress - the claim that, if not every day in every way, then at least some days and in some ways we are getting better and better. This is not taken merely as a story, a possible and most interesting way of seeing it, but as objective and realistic fact, open and obvious to the unprejudiced viewer."
3. "The third master claim is the postulate that there is an external reality out there, extrinsic to our vision, our imagination, and our intellect and that we are gaining objective knowledge and disciplined control over this extramental reality."
Do you still hold to those claims? If so, don't you have to give up on truth? If there is no external reality for our statements to correspond to then it seems we are stuck in story with no way to determine which story is true or closer to true.
April 9, 2007 10:51 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 10:51
There is no contemporary historical evidence that Jesus existed, at least as one individual. If you ask most Christians what the core of their beliefs was they would cite things like baptism, marriage, Christmas and Easter that are ceremonies borrowed from other religions and cults, Mithraism, the cults of Isis and Sol Invicta etc.
Interestingly Mr Crossan seems to be repeating an old heresy, Arianism, that denied the co divinity of Jesus or Homoousios as I think it was called. Read the excellent book The Great Heresies
By Hilaire Belloc for more information. You can find it online for nothing. It is a staunch defence of Nicene Christianity but very informative and well written.
If God created or begot Jesus then, as the Arian argument runs he must be inferior to him. As the early church patriarchs realised hijacking the idea of ressurection from the cult of Isis and holding out the promise of it to believers would keep the money rolling in. They're still running the same old con now and people are still falling for it.
April 9, 2007 10:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 10:36
Adam, What disagreements among them are there that matter?
The list of women who went to the tomb on Easter Sunday? Sorry bad idea. Is it necessary for a brief history of the trans Missippi West that we List the names of every member of the Lewis and Clark Expedition or would it be enough to just list The names of Lewis and Clark and might not different historians list different additional names of party members without being in actual disagreement with each other?
What differences there are between the four Gospels can be chocked up to the fact that different eyewitnesses are recording them.
April 9, 2007 10:13 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 10:13
Anon – you say, “How do we know it is perfect? By the presence of the Holy Spirit, who fills us with peace, joy; who helps us discern notwithstanding our limitations How do we know it is perfect? By the presence of the Holy Spirit, who fills us with peace, joy; who helps us discern notwithstanding our limitations.”
Could you explain where the Holy Spirit is? How it communicates? How you know it “fills us with peace,” etc.? Thanks
Bill L, regarding how we know [galaxies] “weren't created on computers” considering that “we haven't been there to see for ourselves.”
Humans have been observing the universe for millennia, long before computers, and thanks to constantly improving technology, our knowledge about it continues to change and increase. We have even traveled to the moon – our closest neighbor in our galaxy. This openness to new knowledge is in startling contrast to our treatment of the ancient stories in the Bible. For example, many Christians still believe in Jesus’ bodily ascension in heaven even though we now know a human body would burn up in the stratosphere and that heaven is not a physical place right on the other side of the clouds, as our ancestors thought.
April 9, 2007 8:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 08:48
Bill L,
The Magesterium? You mean those old "celibate"
white European Catholic priests who have used the many embellishments of the NT (e.g. Trinity, Individual priesthood, Auricular Confession, Transubstantiation, Infallibility, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Atonement, and 24/7 Filicide) to keep us "pew peasants" in a cloud of guilt and Dark Age "voodoo" for the last 1700 years?
April 9, 2007 2:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 9, 2007 02:04
Not exactly, I mean the Magesterium of the Church, not any one minister or priest.
God came to Earth once, does he need to come to each generation? Faith is that which is believed, yet not yet seen. Sort of like existence of distant galaxies or gravity! We see the affects of gravity but can't see or touch, and we see pictures of galaxies, but how do we know they weren't created on computers? We haven't been there to see for ourselves.
Anonymous above writes well on a personal level! We all understand as we are able, yet the Magesterium is the instrument of the Holy Spirit on a teaching level.
April 8, 2007 8:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 8, 2007 20:51
"...does that imply that everyone's interpretation of the Bible is accurate and that what priests or ministers say is directly from God and should be treated as God talking to us?"
No, it does not imply that. God speaks yet there is also a receiving end, us. The receiving end is limited, big time. Accordingly, we receive imperfectly, although what has been given is perfect.
How do we know it is perfect? By the presence of the Holy Spirit, who fills us with peace, joy; who helps us discern notwithstanding our limitations.
So it's a process of revelation, not a formula.
April 8, 2007 4:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 8, 2007 16:07
Bill L, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this: "through the bible and his Holy Church. He told his disciples that "those who listen to you listen to me, and those who reject you reject me and He who sent me"."
Are you saying that God speaks to us through the Bible and also speaks to us through priests and ministers?
If so, does that imply that everyone's interpretation of the Bible is accurate and that what priests or ministers say is directly from God and should be treated as God talking to us?
April 8, 2007 2:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 8, 2007 14:45
Hi GaryD
A harmonisation is the opposite of an answer - it assumes the Gospels are in utter agreeance, which they aren't. The Diatessaron was written because of the disagreements, as a glossing over of the internal textual arguments. It's simple denial to naively combine the stories and then claim they're in "harmony". Perhaps they're telling the story of one event from several points of view - but they sure don't read that way. The disagreements are real and they have to be answered.
That's why Crossan has been led to his current minimalist Christianity - a personal quest using a historical methodology to find the Gospel free of 1st century Church-Making and mythology. Whether Crossan has succeeded or not is an individual decision - as I've said I respectfully disagree with some of his basic claims - but it's disingenuous to say he's not a Christian because he's left behind someone else's pet dogmas.
And AFAIK he doesn't deny the Trinity - read his "statement of faith" in "The Birth of Christianity" to see what he does believe. What he does reject is mistaking mythological language for real factual data. He might have a metaphysical myopia - I certainly think so - but he is honest in his conclusions and application of his methodological tools. And I think he really does believe.
April 8, 2007 3:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 8, 2007 03:33
MARC HALO writes: "I'm still glad He died though, for making up the silly rules in the first place."
Marc, you hate the wrong person. Jesus said the rules had been made for humans, not humans for the rules. Wherever a 'rule' injures the dignity or true good of humans, by Jesus's standards, it is wrong...and he was killed by people upset