Announcement

Collapse

Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

How did Dominic Crossan become a skeptic about Christianity?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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?

  • #2
    Yes, he did. It's in his memoir A Long Way From Tipperary, which he wrote in the early 2000s. I read it about this time last year; it's pretty interesting.

    Comment


    • #3
      I was going to suggest his memoir too, but have not personally read it.

      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.
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
        He's a delightful man, by the way.
        That is precisely why it is unsatisfactory when psstein says of Farmer that he's a delightful man.
        http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

        Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          I was going to suggest his memoir too, but have not personally read it.

          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 take it you don't really put much stock in 1 Corinthians 15:14.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            I take it you don't really put much stock in 1 Corinthians 15:14.
            cf. verse 17. For that matter all of I Corinthians 15:12-19 and perhaps on up to v.34.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              I take it you don't really put much stock in 1 Corinthians 15:14.
              Nonsense. We've discussed this before, a couple of times, so you should know this is not true.
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                Nonsense. We've discussed this before, a couple of times, so you should know this is not true.
                I honestly don't remember those conversations, but it wouldn't surprise me if you had some sort of ridiculous rationalization.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  I honestly don't remember those conversations, but it wouldn't surprise me if you had some sort of ridiculous rationalization.
                  Last time I had a discussion with robrecht I felt like this.



                  Fortunately you came in the thread and pointed out just how far off the mark robrecht's posts were.
                  Last edited by Cerebrum123; 12-07-2016, 08:37 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                    Last time I had a discussion with robrecht I felt like this.



                    Fortunately you came in the thread and pointed out just how far off the mark robrecht's posts were.
                    My recollection is that Adrift took an admittedly cryptic comment of mine out of its original context and you repeatedly refused to accept my explanation of its meaning. There too you mischaracterized my views from an earlier thread that you had also abandoned. I think you should go back to either or both of these two earlier threads if you want to try to have a better understanding of my perspective.
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      I honestly don't remember those conversations, but it wouldn't surprise me if you had some sort of ridiculous rationalization.
                      You really can do better than this.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                        You really can do better than this.
                        The feeling is mutual.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          The feeling is mutual.
                          Can you be more specific?
                          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by psstein View Post
                            Yes, he did. It's in his memoir A Long Way From Tipperary, which he wrote in the early 2000s. I read it about this time last year; it's pretty interesting.
                            Thanks, P.S.

                            May I ask if you remember what he said on how he arrived at his skepticism on the main supernatural claims initially?

                            Unfortunately, only a bit of the book's beginning is online, and it's quite a long book.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              I take it you don't really put much stock in 1 Corinthians 15:14.
                              That verse says:
                              " 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. "

                              One of the main teachings is that Jesus bodily revived after death. Without Christ's physical revival, a main part of Paul's preaching would be fictional and misleading. But the preaching would still have some value, as in teaching ethics.

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X