John Dominic Crossan - Skepticism towards traditional Christianity

[mikewhitney]

Words are defined by usage, not by fiat. Since I'm not a Christian, I don't see how I have any grounds for disagreeing with anyone who calls themself a Christian.

That noted, whether I or anyone else ought to be believe that the resurrection really happened is an entirely separate question from whether we may properly call someone a Christian when they deny the resurrection.

The way many Christian groups define "Christianity" is in the adherence to historic confessions of faith. After having pretty well resolved many doctrinal disputes through the years since Christ, many ideas are quite common across such confessions. The resurrection to a physical body is one of those common requirements. Even atheist liberal ministers within Christian organizations will preach that there was a physical resurrection lest they lose their congregations.

[robrecht]

From the other thread on John Dominic Crossan:

I will have to dust off old books, and go back and reread Crossan, but I am certain Crossan did not believe in the Resurrection. As I remember he described it in terms of a 'figurative representation' and a belief from the perspective of the disciples and early believers in terms of the Divine nature and power of Jesus.

I also consider him a Christian as he claims, but many, if not by far most Christians probably would not.

That's my recollection, but as I say, I could be wrong. I have not read that much of his material in years. His focus and area of expertise are very different from mine. He focuses much more on attempting to reconstruct the history behind the text, which includes a more elaborate and more hypothetical source-critical theory, whereas methodologically I believe we can only truly focus on the text and am much more circumspect about historical reconstructions, 'though I enjoy them immensely. If my memory serves me well, his view is that the disciples had visions of Jesus that were not merely hallucinations, or something like that. I am glad that you now consider him a Christian. I recall having to inform you of that point over a year ago, as well as the fact that he also still describes himself as 'irrevocably Roman Catholic'. That would be a further point of differentiation between the two.

[shunyadragon]

That's my recollection, but as I say, I could be wrong. I have not read that much of his material in years. His focus and area of expertise are very different from mine. He focuses much more on attempting to reconstruct the history behind the text, which includes a more elaborate and more hypothetical source-critical theory, whereas methodologically I believe we can only truly focus on the text and am much more circumspect about historical reconstructions, 'though I enjoy them immensely. If my memory serves me well, his view is that the disciples had visions of Jesus that were not merely hallucinations, or something like that. I am glad that you now consider him a Christian. I recall having to inform you of that point over a year ago, as well as the fact that he also still describes himself as 'irrevocably Roman Catholic'. That would be a further point of differentiation between the two.

Well . . . I would not consider him 'irrevocably Roman Catholic' nor what I consider a traditional Christian based on the minimum standards of belief here, despite how he describes himself, but I have a wide consideration for what is a Christian. His view of Jesus is by far more a humanist and possibly Deist view than that remotely believed by the Roman Church. I know this is probably where probably would disagree.

[robrecht]

Well . . . I would not consider him 'irrevocably Roman Catholic' nor what I consider a traditional Christian based on the minimum standards of belief here, despite how he describes himself, but I have a wide consideration for what is a Christian. His view of Jesus is by far more a humanist and possibly Deist view than that remotely believed by the Roman Church. I know this is probably where probably would disagree.

And you do not like it when moderators here do not consider you to be a theist, despite the fact that you yourself consider yourself to be a theist. Likewise, you do not consider him to be Catholic, despite the fact that he considers himself to be 'irrevocably Roman Catholic'.

[shunyadragon]

And you do not like it when moderators here do not consider you to be a theist, despite the fact that you yourself consider yourself to be a theist. Likewise, you do not consider him to be Catholic, despite the fact that he considers himself to be 'irrevocably Roman Catholic'.

Robrecht this comparison does not work. I have clearly and specifically defined my belief as Theism, and fully embrace the beliefs of the Baha'i Faith. I have also described myself as a philosophical agnostic and fundamentally question all beliefs including my own, and consider the fallible human perspective of belief to be too diverse and conflicting and unreliable in and of itself, which justifies my skepticism.

The dogmatic oligarchy of Tweb decision that I must used the 'agnostic' title is based on an intolerant religious perspective, and the fact that I argue by Socratic methods aggressively against fallacious archaic arguments for the existence of God and justification of belief. I have been a member since 2014 and my beliefs have never changed. I have cited sources that describe the Christian agnostic belief, Agnosticism in the Baha'i Faith and it was ignored, or 'hand waved.' By the way there is at least one member of Tweb that describes himself as a Christian agnostic, and the Tweb oligarchy ignores it.

As far as Crossan, his description of his beliefs is diametrically opposed to everything that is considered fundamental to the belief in the Roman Church. He actually proposes a non-miraculous humanist Jesus as a rebel and reformer and not the promised Messiah.

If you support this egregious dogmatic dictate I seriously question your motives.

[robrecht]

Robrecht this comparison does not work. I have clearly and specifically defined my belief as Theism, and fully embrace the beliefs of the Baha'i Faith. I have also described myself as a philosophical agnostic and fundamentally question all beliefs including my own, and consider the fallible human perspective of belief to be too diverse and conflicting and unreliable in and of itself, which justifies my skepticism.

The dogmatic oligarchy of Tweb decision that I must used the 'agnostic' title is based on an intolerant religious perspective, and the fact that I argue by Socratic methods aggressively against fallacious archaic arguments for the existence of God and justification of belief. I have been a member since 2014 and my beliefs have never changed. I have cited sources that describe the Christian agnostic belief, Agnosticism in the Baha'i Faith and it was ignored, or 'hand waved.' By the way there is at least one member of Tweb that describes himself as a Christian agnostic, and the Tweb oligarchy ignores it.

As far as Crossan, his description of his beliefs is diametrically opposed to everything that is considered fundamental to the belief in the Roman Church. He actually proposes a non-miraculous humanist Jesus as a rebel and reformer and not the promised Messiah.

If you support this egregious dogmatic dictate I seriously question your motives.

I have already told you a few times that I accept your self-designation as a Theist. I still think the comparison has some validity. Surely the awesome authority structure here at TWeb is no match for the infallible Supreme Pontif, the Vatican, Cardinals, archbishops, bishops, monsignors, priests, deacons, and altar boys of the Roman Catholic Church.

[Adrift]

By the way there is at least one member of Tweb that describes himself as a Christian agnostic, and the Tweb oligarchy ignores it.

Who describes themselves as a Christian agnostic?

Also, you're confused again. You've been a member since before 2014.

[element771]

I also consider him a Christian as he claims, but many, if not by far most Christians probably would not.

As usual for you Shuny, words don't have meaning.

Nothing can mean something.

Christian can mean not believing the basis of the Christian faith.

etc

[seer]

As usual for you Shuny, words don't have meaning.

Nothing can mean something.

Christian can mean not believing the basis of the Christian faith.

etc

[shunyadragon]

As usual for you Shuny, words don't have meaning.

Nothing can mean something.

Christian can mean not believing the basis of the Christian faith.

etc

That is basically what I said form my perspective concerning what it is to be a Christian. Your problem is a reading English issue, and clarify your position.

"I also consider him a Christian as he claims, . . ."

The substance of my post is I believe; "Christian can mean not believing the basis of the Christian faith."

Do you not believe "Christian can mean not believing the basis of the Christian faith."?

[shunyadragon]

Who describes themselves as a Christian agnostic?

Duragizer. Do a smell the tar and feathers of another witch hunt!

Also, you're confused again. You've been a member since before 2014.

Sorry that was the date on my Tweb information. True I actually have been a member near the time (Within a year or so?) the Web site was founded when I lived in China.

[shunyadragon]

I do not reject the teachings of Baha'u'llah. This is an out right lie without citation.

[shunyadragon]

I have already told you a few times that I accept your self-designation as a Theist. I still think the comparison has some validity.

No such comparison is valid.

Surely the awesome authority structure here at TWeb is no match for the infallible Supreme Pontif, the Vatican, Cardinals, archbishops, bishops, monsignors, priests, deacons, and altar boys of the Roman Catholic Church.

You, unfortunately started this comparison which has no validity. The Roman Church of course has no authority here. Your remarks that you accept me as a theist are in conflict with:

And you do not like it when moderators here do not consider you to be a theist, despite the fact that you yourself consider yourself to be a theist. Likewise, you do not consider him to be Catholic, despite the fact that he considers himself to be 'irrevocably Roman Catholic'.

[robrecht]

No such comparison is valid.

You, unfortunately started this comparison which has no validity. The Roman Church of course has no authority here. Your remarks that you accept me as a theist are in conflict with:

There is no conflict whatsoever! You must have misunderstood something.

The comparison is valid on many levels; too bad you cannot see that either. The administration of the Roman Catholic Church would claim the authority to revoke Crossan's standing as a Roman Catholic, but Crossan states that he is irrevocably Roman Catholic. The administration of this website claims the right to revoke your prior registration here as a theist, but you claim nonetheless that you are indeed a theist. You don't see that parallel, really?

In addition, you claim some kind of authoritative understanding of Crossan's beliefs and theology to declare that he is not a Roman Catholic, whereas he claims that he is irrevocably Roman Catholic. Were he aware of your existence, he would dispute your implicit claim to define his standing as a Roman Catholic better than he himself does. Effectively, you're asserting a higher interpretative 'authority', higher than Crossan's own, and even higher than that of the Roman Catholic Church, which, unlike yourself, has not seen fit to dispute Crossan's standing as a Roman Catholic, despite run-ins between Crossan and ecclesiastical authorities.

And, whereas the Roman Catholic Church has not seen fit to dispute Crossan's standing as a Roman Catholic, the administration here at TWeb has indeed seen fit to dispute and declare your lack of status here as a theist. Does that mean the administration of TWeb has exercised greater authority over your non-theist status here than even the Roman Catholic Church exercises over Crossan?

Need I remind you, once again, that I have no official position here at TWeb so I am not implicated in whatever decisions the administration of this site takes with respect to your status here as a theist. Since I have on several occasions accepted your own self-designation as a theist, there is no conflict whatsoever in what I have said.

Capisci?

[shunyadragon]

There is no conflict whatsoever! You must have misunderstood something.

The comparison is valid on many levels; too bad you cannot see that either. The administration of the Roman Catholic Church would claim the authority to revoke Crossan's standing as a Roman Catholic, but Crossan states that he is irrevocably Roman Catholic. The administration of this website claims the right to revoke your prior registration here as a theist, but you claim nonetheless that you are indeed a theist. You don't see that parallel, really?

No, regardless of what the Roman Church decides to do about it, Crossan describes a theology that is diametrically opposed and contradictory to anything believed in the Roman Church. He rejects the miraculous and Divine nature of Jesus Christ, and rejects the Resurrection in any form. I have made no such diametrically opposed nor contradictory beliefs concerning the Baha'i Faith.

In addition, you claim some kind of authoritative understanding of Crossan's beliefs and theology to declare that he is not a Roman Catholic, whereas he claims that he is irrevocably Roman Catholic. Were he aware of your existence, he would dispute your implicit claim to define his standing as a Roman Catholic better than he himself does. Effectively, you're asserting a higher interpretative 'authority', higher than Crossan's own, and even higher than that of the Roman Catholic Church, which, unlike yourself, has not seen fit to dispute Crossan's standing as a Roman Catholic, despite run-ins between Crossan and ecclesiastical authorities.

I need no such authority to express my view based on Crossan's statements of belief diametrically opposed and contradictory with Roman Church beliefs.

And, whereas the Roman Catholic Church has not seen fit to dispute Crossan's standing as a Roman Catholic, the administration here at TWeb has indeed seen fit to dispute and declare your lack of status here as a theist. Does that mean the administration of TWeb has exercised greater authority over your non-theist status here than even the Roman Catholic Church exercises over Crossan?

Not even an issue here. The Roman Church has no authority here. My view is not remotely related to, dependent on, nor responsible to the Roman Church. This is silly.

Need I remind you, once again, that I have no official position here at TWeb so I am not implicated in whatever decisions the administration of this site takes with respect to your status here as a theist. Since I have on several occasions accepted your own self-designation as a theist, there is no conflict whatsoever in what I have said. Capisci?

No