John Dominic Crossan and the Jesus Seminar

[vladthecossack]

To whom it may concern:

 In a matters of weeks, my humble college will be hosting a special speaker: John Dominic Crossan. What I would like are two things: 1. Some ammo. If anyone has done some serious digging and can tell me the Church's stance on Crossan's work or just point out his more fallacious arguments, that would do wonders! 2. Good questions. I will have the opportunity to personally address Mr. Crossan after his lecture and need some excellent, well-worded questions. This is a rare opportunity so please make them good!

Pax Cristi,

David

 

[Vimy_Ridge]

To whom it may concern:

 In a matters of weeks, my humble college will be hosting a special speaker: John Dominic Crossan. What I would like are two things: 1. **Some ammo**. If anyone has done some serious digging and can tell me the Church's stance on Crossan's work or just point out his more fallacious arguments, that would do wonders! 2. Good questions. I will have the opportunity to personally address Mr. Crossan after his lecture and need some excellent, well-worded questions. This is a rare opportunity so please make them good!

Pax Cristi,

David

Ammo? Please don’t hurt him, I was hoping to hear him speak one day too.

 

[DOShea]

Why not get some friends together and take a vote on some of his/his colleagues’ statements. Use color coded dots to indicate whether you think they are truthful or fiction, with a sliding scale in between the extremes. Then you can present him your groups’ opinions on what you’ve decided really represents all they’ve said.

Same thing they’ve done with Scripture.

Personally, I wouldn’t go and waste my time with people who think they can intellectually seance what was/was not said a couple thousand years ago.

 

[Vimy_Ridge]

Why not get some friends together and take a vote on some of his/his colleagues’ statements. Use color coded dots to indicate whether you think they are truthful or fiction, with a sliding scale in between the extremes. Then you can present him your groups’ opinions on what you’ve decided really represents all they’ve said.

Same thing they’ve done with Scripture.

Personally, I wouldn’t go and waste my time with people who think they can intellectually seance what was/was not said a couple thousand years ago.

Its not as simple as that. Have you read any of their works?

 

[thistle]

Its not as simple as that. Have you read any of their works?

The Jesus Seminar comprises a bunch of cranks who deny that Jesus is God and deny he died for our sins.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

To whom it may concern:

In a matters of weeks, my humble college will be hosting a special speaker: John Dominic Crossan. What I would like are two things: 1. Some ammo. If anyone has done some serious digging and can tell me the Church’s stance on Crossan’s work or just point out his more fallacious arguments, that would do wonders! 2. Good questions. I will have the opportunity to personally address Mr. Crossan after his lecture and need some excellent, well-worded questions. This is a rare opportunity so please make them good!

Pax Cristi,

David

Why not listen to what he says,* before *attacking his arguments ?​

 

[vladthecossack]

Well, we almost got the point of the thread, but keep it up! No, I don’t need ammo to hurt the guy, but he’s definitely not in line with the magisterium. I think that this is a wonderful opportunity to engage in genuine discussion. Even if the whole Jesus Seminar is just a bunch of hooey… Of course, if we’re going to denounce it, I’d like some scholarly quotes and references tossed in to either A: Dismiss this silly notion or B: Better understand where Crossan is coming from (Theologically, not actual point of origin ^_^).

God bless,

David

 

[Mark77]

**Ask him why he thinks he is smarter than 2000 years of Church teaching by the greatest minds, including 266 Popes, from St. Peter to Pope Benedict XVI?

Why he is so much more enlightened and intellectually brilliant than all of the Doctors of the Church, including St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and all 31 others.

Ask him why he and his colleagues in the Jesus Seminar are the only ones who are “bright” enough to tell us what God really meant???**

(The answer is arrogance, pride and self-serving ego!)

Jesus was talking about people like the “Jesus Seminar” crowd when He said; “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.You will know them by their fruits.” (Mt 7:15-16).

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[DOShea]

Its not as simple as that. Have you read any of their works?

Yes, and I think they are seriously in error. Truth is not, nor has never been, derived by vote. I also don’t think it is mere coincidence that the verses they hold in the most serious doubt just so happen to impact the doctrines many of them openly disagree with. Their work has agenda written all over it.

Doesn’t it strike you as odd that anyone else who discovers key, scholarly information that might tend to change the historical view of something usually publishes it and lets it go through the normal process of critical review? Then the ultimate acceptance of those new views is a determination of the theory’s validity? Why was it necessary to sidestep that accepted process and meet up to take votes? The obvious reason is that by restricting the “voters” to those of like mind, you produce results that LOOK to be credible. In other words, they are attempting to lead you to believe consensus = truth, and it does not. Just ask Galileo.

Don’t let my opinion stop you, go listen and believe it all lock, stock and barrel if that’s what makes you tick.

 

[PeterK]

First, if you have not studied the writings of the Jesus Seminar or Mr. Crossan’s writings in particular, he will eat you alive if you decide to play “on his court.” He is an intellectual. He has earned his degrees - you have to allow him that much. I only say this because I don’t want you to discredit yourself by thinking there is some ‘trick’ question available that is going to put him on the spot, there isn’t and it will only backfire on you.

Crossan used to be a Catholic Priest. What would be interesting to me would be to investigate his abandonment of the supernatural. He has adopted a purely materialist p.o.v. I think I am correct when I say he does not believe in the Incarnation or Resurrection as traditional held by Christians. So as a materialist does he believe there is a God at all? or anything supernatural at all? If yes, how much does he allow this God to become involved in the affairs of humans? Does his idea of God allow for an Incarnation? He’s so busy refuting tradition no one asks him to explain anything. Does he consider himself a Christian? If yes, with what branch of Christianity does he affiliate himself - the Crossanists? (most probable)

Anyway, do you get my drift with the questioning? Basically, ask him to explain himself, if he does not believe in ‘x’ or ‘y’ or ‘z’, then what does he believe in?

Also, interesting to me would be to know what he thinks is going to happen to himself when he dies. Is there a heaven or hell, judgement, reward? My guess is he surely does not believe in hell, but the point is if he believes in anything supernatural occurring after death how does he support that - with the Bible? scientific observation? Again, explain yourself Crossan, you have all the answers, please do enlighten us all!

hope this helped.

Peter K

 

[Vimy_Ridge]

Yes, and I think they are seriously in error. Truth is not, nor has never been, derived by vote. I also don’t think it is mere coincidence that the verses they hold in the most serious doubt just so happen to impact the doctrines many of them openly disagree with. Their work has agenda written all over it.

Doesn’t it strike you as odd that anyone else who discovers key, scholarly information that might tend to change the historical view of something usually publishes it and lets it go through the normal process of critical review? Then the ultimate acceptance of those new views is a determination of the theory’s validity? Why was it necessary to sidestep that accepted process and meet up to take votes? The obvious reason is that by restricting the “voters” to those of like mind, you produce results that LOOK to be credible. In other words, they are attempting to lead you to believe consensus = truth, and it does not. Just ask Galileo.

Don’t let my opinion stop you, go listen and believe it all lock, stock and barrel if that’s what makes you tick.

Bible scholars have been using similar methods for at least 200 years now. If we do not try and separate real history and religious metaphor when studying the bible then we miss out on so much.

The reason we have so many denominations and different doctrines is because people still take a literal-factual approach with scripture. The modern world separates fiction and history but in the ancient world they did not.

I used to read scripture as if it was all literally true and I came to the conclusion that it was a mass of contradictions and that the God of the bible was in fact evil.

If we realize that the bible is man made and not literally the word of God then we can still use what is good in scripture. Every denomination picks and chooses anyways even if they claim to believe the whole bible. At least liberal christians are honest about it.

 

[InspiritCarol]

Perhaps I give humanity too much credit, but it really blows my mind that people are so lost and ignorant as to fall for the pseudo-intellectual trickery of the so called “Jesus seminar” and the modernist perspective in general. When did we stop teaching logic in schools?

I thoroughly agree that it is the height of imprudence to step into Mr. Crossan’s ball field because it is a virtual reality constructed solely by the modernists and upheld ENTIRELY with circular logic.

Don’t let the claim to former priesthood fool you; we are talking about one who has fallen. The best course of action to deal with such a one is to address the book of Proverbs and look specifically to the passages regarding “fools”.

Also, for a nice clean, concise and thorough refutation of the modernist perspective and the “Jesus Seminar” please refer to the book:
“By What Authority?: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition” by Mark P. Shea. It is fantastic!

The absolute BEST defense anyone can have for anything is to STUDY YOUR BIBLE and Catechism. Yes don’t read, but study your bible and history itself. Get a good, Catholic, study bible but don’t stop there! The modern study bibles have allowed secular intuitive thinking to creep in everywhere. Watch for where those intuitive leaps are made and go the extra yard to cross reference with prayerful Internet searches. Pray for discernment for the Holy Spirit. The more one reads and studies and prays, the more one will find that those so-called biblical contradictions simply don’t exist in any meaningful way.

Since, you can’t confront a delusional self-aggrandizing individual on their playing field and hope to possibly gain any real fruits, I recommend getting a group together and praying for the sheep attending the lecture. Pray for their eyes to be opened, pray for them to not be fooled by the smoke and mirrors. This is a huge request, so a novena would be a wonderful way to show God you really mean it and care. Fasting during prayer is also very helpful.

Your desire is admirable, but I fear you’ve chosen a losing battle if you think to take this on alone.

Ultimately you need to pray, then pray, then pray some more.

 

[vladthecossack]

Hmmm… It seems my decision to not get a doctorate at age 20 is coming back to haunt me… But nonetheless, thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut. I understand the first rule of debate is never go against someone smarter than yourself. Luckily, this isn’t a debate. PeterK brought an excellent question topic: having Mr. Crossan define his belief system. A question that puts the ball in neither my nor his court would be to the greatest advantage, so if anyone can think of another, or if they think it’s impossible, keep on posting!

God bless,

David

 

[Kamalayka]

I used to read scripture as if it was all literally true and I came to the conclusion that it was a mass of contradictions and that the God of the bible was in fact evil.

If we realize that the bible is man made and not literally the word of God then we can still use what is good in scripture. Every denomination picks and chooses anyways even if they claim to believe the whole bible. At least liberal christians are honest about it.

I hope to GOD that you are not teaching any of this nonsense in the Name of God.

To quote St. Paul (yes, he was a real person)-
“Not many should desire to be teachers, because they face a more strict judgment from God.”

God IS real
Jesus IS Christ
The Resurrection IS a historical event
Angels DO exist
Hell DOES exist

 

[chaunceygardner]

I have recently been reading some of Crossan and if he speaks like he writes, you won’t be awake at the end to ask him any questions. And if you do ask him a question, his response is likely to be so obtuse and drawn out that you will have forgotten the question when he is finished.

 

[TMC]

Crossan is certainly not what you might call a conventional Catholic theologian. For example, as I understand it he believes in the Resurrection, but holds that Jesus was resurrected spiritually, not bodily. He focuses on the meaning of the Gospels for people today, and says that whether the events in the Bible happened exactly as described is less important than what God is trying to tell us through them. As a result, most fundamentalists have a really hard time with him.

 

[BrianH]

Because your starting presuppositions will probably differ so much, having a debate will not be fruitful. He knows his Bible exceptionally well; he just believes something differently about it. There is not an argument he has not heard. As such, which parts he believes are valid and the parts that he does not cannot be used against him!
If you ask him why he believes what he believes, he will also have an answer as well.
This is why a discussion about scripture and history with someone with different presuppositions will go in circles.

 

[Vimy_Ridge]

I hope to GOD that you are not teaching any of this nonsense in the Name of God.

To quote St. Paul (yes, he was a real person)-
“Not many should desire to be teachers, because they face a more strict judgment from God.”

God IS real
Jesus IS Christ
The Resurrection IS a historical event
Angels DO exist
Hell DOES exist

I understand where people are coming from when they react so strongly to this view of scripture. I used to think the same way and all this sounded like heresy to me too.

Read the book ‘The God We Never Knew’ or ‘Reading The Bible Again For The First Time’ by Marcus J. Borg. You will see that this way of looking at Christianity is not an attack on the faith but simply a more mature understanding of the faith.

 

[Kamalayka]

If by “mature,” you mean worldy-minded, then no thanks!

Pride is what separated Lucifer from God. Intellectual pride is what separates man from God.
Didn’t Christ say, “Unless you receive the kingdom of God as children, you will by no means enter it”?

(Or maybe, according to you, that was “added” later on. Gee, how convenient… )

I would like to say, however, that I am not sticking my head in the sand. I know the arguments that are made.

 

[Kamalayka]

I understand where people are coming from when they react so strongly to this view of scripture. I used to think the same way and all this sounded like heresy to me too.

Read the book ‘The God We Never Knew’ or ‘Reading The Bible Again For The First Time’ by Marcus J. Borg. You will see that this way of looking at Christianity is not an attack on the faith but simply a more mature understanding of the faith.

If by “mature,” you mean worldy-minded, then no thanks!

Pride is what separated Lucifer from God. Intellectual pride is what separates man from God.
Didn’t Christ say, “Unless you receive the kingdom of God as children, you will by no means enter it”?

(Or maybe, according to you, that was “added” later on. Gee, how convenient… )

I would like to say, however, that I am not sticking my head in the sand. I know the arguments that are made.​

I don’t mean this to sound rude.

Many try to “interpret” the Gospel in light of what seems credible to their mind, what the world tells us is real. The idea of a literal Resurrection is impossible to the world; therefore, some give in and treat it as “symbolic.”

I guess making it seem distant and abstract removes it from everyday reality. It is easier for some to believe in a God who is “out there somewhere.”