John Dominic Crossan - Skepticism towards traditional Christianity

[shunyadragon]

The following post started a thread in Unorthodox Theology 201 concerning the reasons for John Crossan's skepticism towards traditional Christianity. It is in a place I cannot post, therefore, because of my interest in this topic I am starting a thread in Apologetics 301.

Crossan and I share a similar history; (1) We are both raised in a traditional Irish Roman Church family. (2) Our immediate family was somewhat not very religious, but none the less traditional. (3) we both attended Roman Church schools.

The main difference is my skepticism began early after considering for one year joining the Franciscan Order. I broke away from the traditional beliefs in Christianity at about 18. Crossan continued his academic studies and became a priest, and it was later he made the break.

In my early skepticism in the 1960's my conclusions concerning the nature of the life Jesus Christ were very similar to John Crossan's.

More to follow . . .

Question How did Dominic Crossan become a skeptic about Christianity?

I am interesting in learning how Dominic Crossan became a skeptic about Christianity? Have any of you read enough about him to come across any biographical discussions he made?

I tried to find out the answer, and learned that he was in the catholic priesthood in the early 1960's and was a professor at a Catholic college but then left it to become a professor elsewhere. I know that he left the priesthood and married twice. I know that he helped run the Jesus Seminar with Marcus Borg in the mid 1980's and that his opinion is that Jesus did exist, based on writings by Josephus and Tacitus. He also points out that the early opponents of Christianity did not claim that Jesus never existed. But Crossan also sees Jesus' physical resurrection and prophecies of His Second Coming as myths or parables.

So my question is how, earlier in his life, did Crossan reach his skepticism? Has he written about this?

I believe some insight into John Crossan' beliefs and journey into skepticism may be found here; http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/02/27/Jesus.scholar/

[Adrift]

Who's David/Davis Crossan? Are you referring to John Dominic Crossan?

[shunyadragon]

Who's David/Davis Crossan? Are you referring to John Dominic Crossan?

Sorry for the error - corrected.

[The Pixie]

I believe some insight into John Crossan' beliefs and journey into skepticism may be found here; http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/02/27/Jesus.scholar/

As far as I know, he is still a Christian, even if he rejects much of the resurrection narrative.

[hansgeorg]

As far as I know, he is still a Christian, even if he rejects much of the resurrection narrative.

Oxymoron.

Unless you take Christian as community reference rather than as dogma believed.

[shunyadragon]

As far as I know, he is still a Christian, even if he rejects much of the resurrection narrative.

He does describe himself as a Christian, but decidedly rejects more than just the resurrection narrative, and he rejects the miraculous Jesus Christ entirely. Actually his current view is more a humanist Jesus as a non-violent rebel against Roman domination and a reformer of Judaism, which I do not go as far as he does in rejecting traditional Christianity. Initially in the 1960's I also believed in a more humanist Jesus.

Hansgeorg's view is the most common view that most Christians would not consider Crossan a Christian. In fact the opposition to Crossan among traditional Christians is rather condemning and aggressive to say the least.

[Doug Shaver]

Oxymoron.

Unless you take Christian as community reference rather than as dogma believed.

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.

[Doug Shaver]

In fact the opposition to Crossan among traditional Christians is rather condemning and aggressive to say the least.

Traditional Christians can satisfy themselves in one of two ways when they talk about Crossan. (1) They can denounce him for not being a real Christian. (2) They can show that he has no good reason to deny the resurrection. The first is way easier than the second.

[robrecht]

He does describe himself as a Christian, but decidedly rejects more than just the resurrection narrative, and he rejects the miraculous Jesus Christ entirely. Actually his current view is more a humanist Jesus as a non-violent rebel against Roman domination and a reformer of Judaism, which I do not go as far as he does in rejecting traditional Christianity. Initially in the 1960's I also believed in a more humanist Jesus.

Hansgeorg's view is the most common view that most Christians would not consider Crossan a Christian. In fact the opposition to Crossan among traditional Christians is rather condemning and aggressive to say the least.

What aspects of traditional Christianity do you accept that Crossan rejects?

[hansgeorg]

Since I'm not a Christian, I don't see how I have any grounds for disagreeing with anyone who calls themself a Christian.

And usage of long standing has Christian meaning among other criteria accepting Resurrection. Fact and narratives.

Of course, calling Crossan an apostate, since he has been a Christian, is true, but if you like there are less reproachful terms, like Deist, Non-Miraculous Theist or whatever (as far as I understood he is not an atheist).

[hansgeorg]

Traditional Christians can satisfy themselves in one of two ways when they talk about Crossan. (1) They can denounce him for not being a real Christian. (2) They can show that he has no good reason to deny the resurrection. The first is way easier than the second.

I took the first first, because it is shortest.

On occasion, I'll be happy to take the second way too!

[Adrift]

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.

Traditional Christians can satisfy themselves in one of two ways when they talk about Crossan. (1) They can denounce him for not being a real Christian. (2) They can show that he has no good reason to deny the resurrection. The first is way easier than the second.

Exactly! Just because I eat meat on an almost daily basis doesn't mean that I'm not a Vegan. People who denounce me as a non-Vegan are really only doing it because they don't like my idiosyncratic take on Veganism.

[shunyadragon]

What aspects of traditional Christianity do you accept that Crossan rejects?

The following is a brief summary of the different views of my belief (Baha'i Faith), Crossan, and Traditional Christian beliefs.

(I) Resurrection - (1) My belief is the Resurrection is spiritual. (2) Crossan - No Resurrection. (3) Traditional Christianity - Resurrection was physical.

(II) Divine Nature of Jesus Christ as Son of God and the Messiah - (1) My view is Jesus was spiritually the Son of God and the Messiah of the Age in progressive Revelation universal with all of humanity. (2) Crossan - Rejects the belief that Jesus was a Messiah in the Theistic Divine sense, and refers to the Son of God in a broader transcendental sense, which the divine (Deist?) may be a more general term for those who devote their lives to the salvic purpose to save humanity. He Describes the station of Jesus as the Son of God as follows:



By the way a very good source describing many of Crossan's beliefs.

(3) Traditional Christianity - Jesus Christ is physically the Son of God, the (only) promised Messiah for the Salvation of humanity.

(III) The Trinity - (1) My belief is that the Trinity is a spiritually symbolic representation of the relationship of God to humanity in universal Revelation and Salvation, and not literally 'Three Divine Persons as One God.' Strict Monotheism. (2) Crossan - Rejects the Trinity entirely as the Divine nature of God in any form or interpretation. Deism? or non-revelation theism, or maybe simply a humanist view. (3) Traditional Christian belief is the Trinity is a literal representation as 'Three Divine Persons as One God.' in one form or another as the nature of the relationship of Revelation and Salvation between humanity/Creation and God.

In the 1960's when I left the Roman Church I shared Crossan's beliefs, read widely those that shared his views. I did not know of Crossan until I began reading his books in the 1980's on.

[shunyadragon]

From the other thread on John Dominic Crossan:

Crossan does not believe in a physical resurrection, but if I recall correctly, he does believe in the resurrection, that the disciples had true visions of Jesus exalted after his death, the first fruits of the general resurrection, or something like that. He very much considers himself a Christian. I do too. I had a nice conversation with him once on a post-breakfast stroll at an SNTS meeting. He's a delightful man, by the way.

I don't know how he personally came to his view of the resurrection, but it is not an uncommon position among professional theologians and academics. I don't know if he has ever detailed an evolution of his views specific to the resurrection. Most of his work has been trying to get back to the earliest traditions of the teachings of Jesus prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus.

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.

[robrecht]

The following is a brief summary of the different views of my belief (Baha'i Faith), Crossan, and Traditional Christian beliefs.

(I) Resurrection - (1) My belief is the Resurrection is spiritual. (2) Crossan - No Resurrection. (3) Traditional Christianity - Resurrection was physical.

(II) Divine Nature of Jesus Christ as Son of God and the Messiah - (1) My view is Jesus was spiritually the Son of God and the Messiah of the Age in progressive Revelation universal with all of humanity. (2) Crossan - Rejects the belief that Jesus was a Messiah in the Theistic Divine sense, and refers to the Son of God in a broader transcendental sense, which the divine (Deist?) may be a more general term for those who devote their lives to the salvic purpose to save humanity. He Describes the station of Jesus as the Son of God as follows:



By the way a very good source describing many of Crossan's beliefs.

(3) Traditional Christianity - Jesus Christ is physically the Son of God, the (only) promised Messiah for the Salvation of humanity.

(III) The Trinity - (1) My belief is that the Trinity is a spiritually symbolic representation of the relationship of God to humanity in universal Revelation and Salvation, and not literally 'Three Divine Persons as One God.' Strict Monotheism. (2) Crossan - Rejects the Trinity entirely as the Divine nature of God in any form or interpretation. Deism? or non-revelation theism, or maybe simply a humanist view. (3) Traditional Christian belief is the Trinity is a literal representation as 'Three Divine Persons as One God.' in one form or another as the nature of the relationship of Revelation and Salvation between humanity/Creation and God.

In the 1960's when I left the Roman Church I shared Crossan's beliefs, read widely those that shared his views. I did not know of Crossan until I began reading his books in the 1980's on.

Thanks for clarifying your views, Shuny.