I found it on Paul’s You Tube channel.
I guess PW is going to put it up soon here at his blog.
Paul looks so giddy and happy that such an intellectual scholar has joined him on his YouTube channel.
Crossan is very smart and also a very respectable person, even though his unbelief (kufr) is massive – he interprets everything through impersonal Evolution (Cosmological – big Bang theory; then biological, then political evolution – he interprets Jesus’ life and sayings about the kingdom of God /heaven through a John Lennon -“Imagine” lens. Crossan says “proclaim and live the kingdom” means “get with the program” (of love and caring for neighbor in macro-political terms – no more poverty, violence, wars, etc.) – the classic western liberal theology that guts all supernatural elements of the Bible.
Very interesting discussion. What was his basis for believing that the texts about miracles are really metaphors / parables, whereas the parables themselves of Jesus are explicitly said to be parables? the text will say, “and Jesus opened His mouth and told a parable” . . . etc. He denied that he has an a-priori anti-supernatural presupposition, but he really does; that seemed obvious, even though he denied that in your question.
Paul,
I encourage everyone to listen to the whole thing – the end is the most important part, but the whole thing is important to get a little bit of where he is coming from.
At the end of your discussion with Crossan, he gives 3 mysteries that exist and they are “3 in 1” (how interesting!)
1. Why something/anything rather than nothing? = why is there existence, creation, thought, nature, space, time, stars, planets, etc. ?
2. Why is it (I guess he means matter and existence, or Evolution) dynamic rather than static?
3. Why is it so absolutely just (fair)?
What do you think he means by that?
He admits that he not like some of the things that happen (viruses, pandemics, wars, violence, evil) but he seems to say that even those are “just” and “fair” – what is his definition of just and fair?
He seems to be saying that death and meaningless is just and fair and that will win in the end.
Sounds like a Hindu concept of “Karma” (John Lennon again, “Instant Karma is gunna get you”)
Ken- did Paul ask Crossan why he doesn’t think Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher unlike the “vast majority of critical scholars”?
The historical Jesus purely depends the inputs you put in.
If you assume Jesus couldn’t be the incarnate son of God (as critical scholarship must(!) it is because God’s existence is a theological not a Historical claim)
You will then conclude that Jesus wouldn’t claim to be the incarnate son of God .
Why?
Because only the incarnate son of God would make that claim but as there is no God in the historical critical method (because God’s existence is a theological not a Historical claim) Jesus couldn’t have said that.
(unless he was the incarnate son of God… but that’s outside the scope of inquiry)
It’s such a stupid presuppisaition to use to attack Christianity if you are a theist.
Hey Ryan,
Great reason and logic and comports with the Biblical God (The Trinity, incarnation of the Son of God, etc.)
as to your question, no, Paul did not ask Crossan that specific question.
Crossan does not think Jesus was an “apocalyptic preacher”?
who does Crossan think Jesus was? (what was is his “label” for him?) – because to me, Crossan seems to think Jesus existed and preached about the kingdom of heaven / God, and was crucified and died, but he interprets “the kingdom of heaven” is here, as “get with the political program of making the world a better place” – no violence, no wars, no poverty, etc.) (similar to Marxism and John Lennon’s “Imagine”)
I know Crossan has said that “the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be ” Did Paul ask him what his scholarly view was on Jesus not really being crucified?
Ryan, you are doing good at cutting to the essence.
I wrote Paul in the comments at the You Tube video:
“He (Crossan) was very clear that the historical Jesus was crucified and died. So much for Islam and it’s denial in Surah 4:157, which we have pointed out many times.”
No, he did not ask that question.
Very good question.
I guess by Jesus saying to Peter, “Blessed are you, Peter . . . etc. (in response to “you are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God”, then some would say that Jesus is refer to Himself as the Messiah – also, in Mark 14:60-64 – Jesus answered yes to the chief priest’s question – “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” (same in the Matthew parallel)
I listened to the whole thing, but I cannot regurgitate it all for you here. Some of it that I remember was Crossan’s story of how he became a priest – in high school in Ireland, he was smart and learned Greek and Latin really well, and was chosen to the USA for further education in the Roman Catholic system and priesthood. Eventually, he rejected the priesthood in the 1960s – because of the Papal Encyclical that prohibited all contraceptives. (what he said in his discussion with Paul W.) – but what he did not mention, which is recorded elsewhere in his books, was that he was promiscuous and fell in love and wanted to marry, etc. and so renounced his vow of chastity and vow of obedience. This is documented in the Doctoral paper of Tawa John Anderson. It is a helpful analysis of Crossan’s overall liberal theology.
see here. https://digital.library.sbts.edu/bitstream/handle/10392/2847/Anderson_sbts_0207D_10031.pdf?sequence=1
Lord willing, but so far, lack of time and my own desire to do them properly and struggling with editing / etc. and wanting to do some textual graphics and the need to learn more has kept me from actually doing what I really want to do.
It was an interesting discussion; not only for what was said, but the questions that you did not ask him are revealing, as per ryan’s questions (here, earlier on this threat comment boxes) about scholarship, and consensus, historical critical scholars, etc.
“In the beginning was the God and the Word was with the God and the Word was the God
Maybe Ken finally realizes the meaning of this verse and is ready to take his sahhaddah
I testify that there is only One Creator, Sovereign God, the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) who existed from all eternity past, One God in three persons, and that Jesus Christ is the Al-Masih (The Messiah) and Jesus is the eternal Word (who became human in space and time- John 1, Philippians 2), that Jesus is the eternal Son (John 17:5), one substance with the Father, and I testify that the Holy Spirit is one substance with the Father and the Son and is living in all believers in Christ in all biblical churches.
Matthew 28:18-20
2 Corinthians 13:14
John chapter 1
Philippians chapter 2
Hebrews chapter 1
John chapters 14-17
Colossians chapter 1
John 20:28
Thomas said to Him, “My Lord and My God!”
Psalm 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord, sit at My right hand, until I make all your enemies a footstool for Your feet.
Psalm 2 – The Davidic king is called “Messiah” and “Son” and all are called to worship and submit to the Son.
The Pharisees understood this at Jesus’ trial that the Messiah is Son of God.
Mark 14:60-64
There is no forgiveness without Al Masih’s atonement.
Mark 10:45
I found it on Paul’s You Tube channel.
I guess PW is going to put it up soon here at his blog.
Paul looks so giddy and happy that such an intellectual scholar has joined him on his YouTube channel.
Crossan is very smart and also a very respectable person, even though his unbelief (kufr) is massive – he interprets everything through impersonal Evolution (Cosmological – big Bang theory; then biological, then political evolution – he interprets Jesus’ life and sayings about the kingdom of God /heaven through a John Lennon -“Imagine” lens. Crossan says “proclaim and live the kingdom” means “get with the program” (of love and caring for neighbor in macro-political terms – no more poverty, violence, wars, etc.) – the classic western liberal theology that guts all supernatural elements of the Bible.
Very interesting discussion. What was his basis for believing that the texts about miracles are really metaphors / parables, whereas the parables themselves of Jesus are explicitly said to be parables? the text will say, “and Jesus opened His mouth and told a parable” . . . etc. He denied that he has an a-priori anti-supernatural presupposition, but he really does; that seemed obvious, even though he denied that in your question.
Paul,
I encourage everyone to listen to the whole thing – the end is the most important part, but the whole thing is important to get a little bit of where he is coming from.
At the end of your discussion with Crossan, he gives 3 mysteries that exist and they are “3 in 1” (how interesting!)
1. Why something/anything rather than nothing? = why is there existence, creation, thought, nature, space, time, stars, planets, etc. ?
2. Why is it (I guess he means matter and existence, or Evolution) dynamic rather than static?
3. Why is it so absolutely just (fair)?
What do you think he means by that?
He admits that he not like some of the things that happen (viruses, pandemics, wars, violence, evil) but he seems to say that even those are “just” and “fair” – what is his definition of just and fair?
He seems to be saying that death and meaningless is just and fair and that will win in the end.
Sounds like a Hindu concept of “Karma” (John Lennon again, “Instant Karma is gunna get you”)
Ken- did Paul ask Crossan why he doesn’t think Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher unlike the “vast majority of critical scholars”?
The historical Jesus purely depends the inputs you put in.
If you assume Jesus couldn’t be the incarnate son of God (as critical scholarship must(!) it is because God’s existence is a theological not a Historical claim)
You will then conclude that Jesus wouldn’t claim to be the incarnate son of God .
Why?
Because only the incarnate son of God would make that claim but as there is no God in the historical critical method (because God’s existence is a theological not a Historical claim) Jesus couldn’t have said that.
(unless he was the incarnate son of God… but that’s outside the scope of inquiry)
It’s such a stupid presuppisaition to use to attack Christianity if you are a theist.
Hey Ryan,
Great reason and logic and comports with the Biblical God (The Trinity, incarnation of the Son of God, etc.)
as to your question, no, Paul did not ask Crossan that specific question.
Crossan does not think Jesus was an “apocalyptic preacher”?
who does Crossan think Jesus was? (what was is his “label” for him?) – because to me, Crossan seems to think Jesus existed and preached about the kingdom of heaven / God, and was crucified and died, but he interprets “the kingdom of heaven” is here, as “get with the political program of making the world a better place” – no violence, no wars, no poverty, etc.) (similar to Marxism and John Lennon’s “Imagine”)
Thanks Ken-
I know Crossan has said that “the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be ” Did Paul ask him what his scholarly view was on Jesus not really being crucified?
No, Paul did not ask him that.
Ryan, you are doing good at cutting to the essence.
I wrote Paul in the comments at the You Tube video:
“He (Crossan) was very clear that the historical Jesus was crucified and died. So much for Islam and it’s denial in Surah 4:157, which we have pointed out many times.”
Did Paul, ask Crossan how ‘If Jesus of Nazareth never referred to himself as the Messiah why does the Quran claim he is?”
No, he did not ask that question.
Very good question.
I guess by Jesus saying to Peter, “Blessed are you, Peter . . . etc. (in response to “you are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God”, then some would say that Jesus is refer to Himself as the Messiah – also, in Mark 14:60-64 – Jesus answered yes to the chief priest’s question – “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” (same in the Matthew parallel)
Did he ask Dr Crossan what colour rating he have coded Jesus’s spoken words in the Quran?
No, he did not ask that question either.
Did Paul ask him what his scholarly view was on Jesus not really being crucified?
I love how you put the question into the words of PW type of other arguments against the NT and Christianity.
Did he ask if Historical critical scholars believe that Jesus was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary?
No, Paul did not ask that either.
I wonder what they spoke about then Ken? Was it John by any chance?
I listened to the whole thing, but I cannot regurgitate it all for you here. Some of it that I remember was Crossan’s story of how he became a priest – in high school in Ireland, he was smart and learned Greek and Latin really well, and was chosen to the USA for further education in the Roman Catholic system and priesthood. Eventually, he rejected the priesthood in the 1960s – because of the Papal Encyclical that prohibited all contraceptives. (what he said in his discussion with Paul W.) – but what he did not mention, which is recorded elsewhere in his books, was that he was promiscuous and fell in love and wanted to marry, etc. and so renounced his vow of chastity and vow of obedience. This is documented in the Doctoral paper of Tawa John Anderson. It is a helpful analysis of Crossan’s overall liberal theology.
see here.
https://digital.library.sbts.edu/bitstream/handle/10392/2847/Anderson_sbts_0207D_10031.pdf?sequence=1
See my comment above where I go into some of the main things Crossan said.https://bloggingtheology.com/2021/03/13/blogging-theology-meets-professor-john-dominic-crossan/comment-page-1/#comment-55949
Do you mean “The Gospel according to John”?
yes – The Gospel according to John
They did not discuss the gospel according to John.
You can listen to the whole thing yourself; as I said, I cannot regurgitate it all.
So when are you going to start making videos Ken?
Lord willing, but so far, lack of time and my own desire to do them properly and struggling with editing / etc. and wanting to do some textual graphics and the need to learn more has kept me from actually doing what I really want to do.
So, when are you going to put up your YouTube video of discussion with John Dominic Crossan here at Blogging Theology?
I hadn’t planed to. You want me to? I didn’t know you were a fan of his.
It was an interesting discussion; not only for what was said, but the questions that you did not ask him are revealing, as per ryan’s questions (here, earlier on this threat comment boxes) about scholarship, and consensus, historical critical scholars, etc.
Paul,
what do you think Crossan meant by the 3rd mystery of the Universe is that everything is absolutely just / fair ? beginning around 1:10:00
also very interesting that you said, “mind created matter”
That is what the Logos is – “the mind in motion, action, moving outward, expressing itself in words”
“In the beginning was the Word (λογος / logos) and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” John 1:1
. . .
” All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”
John 1:3
God said, “Let there be light”, etc. . . . (Genesis chapter 1)
God the Father created all things through the eternal Word / the Son (Jesus Christ)
the Logos
mind creating matter
“In the beginning was the God and the Word was with the God and the Word was the God
Maybe Ken finally realizes the meaning of this verse and is ready to take his sahhaddah
I testify that there is only One Creator, Sovereign God, the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) who existed from all eternity past, One God in three persons, and that Jesus Christ is the Al-Masih (The Messiah) and Jesus is the eternal Word (who became human in space and time- John 1, Philippians 2), that Jesus is the eternal Son (John 17:5), one substance with the Father, and I testify that the Holy Spirit is one substance with the Father and the Son and is living in all believers in Christ in all biblical churches.
Matthew 28:18-20
2 Corinthians 13:14
John chapter 1
Philippians chapter 2
Hebrews chapter 1
John chapters 14-17
Colossians chapter 1
John 20:28
Thomas said to Him, “My Lord and My God!”
Psalm 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord, sit at My right hand, until I make all your enemies a footstool for Your feet.
Psalm 2 – The Davidic king is called “Messiah” and “Son” and all are called to worship and submit to the Son.
The Pharisees understood this at Jesus’ trial that the Messiah is Son of God.
Mark 14:60-64
There is no forgiveness without Al Masih’s atonement.
Mark 10:45
Perhaps when he starts making sense 🤔
Paul,
what do you think Crossan meant by the 3rd mystery of the Universe is that everything is absolutely just / fair ? beginning around 1:10:00