Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 04-08-2005, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

You (or John Crossan) lost me on this one. Healings don't really heal?

Where can I find out more about Crossan. Fascinating notion.

Look in The Birth of Christianity. Crossan's analysis is based on modern anthrpological understandings of the disease process. In most societies sickness is a form of uncleanliness or impurity. Hence, there is a social element to being sick. Crossan's argument is that Jesus addressed this aspect. Hence Jesus' miracles show him interacting with the unclean -- a bleeding woman, a leper, the dead (see Num 5:1 and you'll find the origin of those stories!) -- and "healing" them in their social aspects. It's just another in a long line of attempts to save the narrative and preserve some vestige of an HJ.

Vorkosigan

John A. Broussard · 04-08-2005, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Look in The Birth of Christianity. Crossan's analysis is based on modern anthrpological understandings of the disease process. In most societies sickness is a form of uncleanliness or impurity. Hence, there is a social element to being sick. Crossan's argument is that Jesus addressed this aspect. Hence Jesus' miracles show him interacting with the unclean -- a bleeding woman, a leper, the dead (see Num 5:1 and you'll find the origin of those stories!) -- and "healing" them in their social aspects. It's just another in a long line of attempts to save the narrative and preserve some vestige of an HJ.

Vorkosigan

Fascinating!!! I'm learning a lot from this site. What does John Crossan say about Jesus bringing Lazarus back to life?

Thanks for that reference, by the way. Will definitely look into it.

Amaleq13 · 04-08-2005, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

What does John Crossan say about Jesus bringing Lazarus back to life?

IIRC, "raising the dead" results from accepting anyone who is considered an outcast by society. They are dead to the social struction but brought back to life into the new social structure of the Kingdom of God.

Clivedurdle · 04-08-2005, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com
John Dominic Crossan is the leading contemporary scholar on the historical Jesus, which means that his vocation is to look behind, around, and through Christ's resurrection, toward the goal of establishing what can be known about the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

His search for the historical Jesus, however, takes place in the larger context of the life of the church. Among the goals of The Birth of Christianity is to teach readers how our habits of worship have created false gods. To that end, Crossan attempts to unearth the religion's earliest forms. What did Christianity look like, Crossan asks, between the crucifixion and the conversion of Paul? And what might Christianity look like today had Saul never set off toward Damascus?

Crossan's conclusions don't come from newly discovered documents; they come from freshly-minted academic methodologies. He uses anthropology, history, and archaeology to construct his arguments about the essential nature of both Jesus' religion and Paul's. The 25-cent summary of his conclusion is that Jesus did not recognize the dualism between spirit and flesh that formed the basis of Paul's apocalyptic Christianity. In other words, Jesus was more Jewish than Paul.

The ramifications of this argument are huge. Crossan says much of Christian worship--and many of the world's injustices--are based on the dualistic Christ that Paul preached. Though Crossan doesn't bully readers into accepting his conclusions, he does press hard for them to situate their own beliefs in relation to his interpretations of Jesus and Paul. At every point in the evolution of his argument, he asks readers questions such as "How do you understand a human being?" and "What is the character of your God?" Then he proceeds to answer these questions himself. Finally, he tells readers what he thinks these answers mean.

It's an incredibly civilized style of argument--both spiritually and intellectually respectful and always rhetorically engaging. Though The Birth of Christianity weighs in at almost 600 pages of text, you'll probably want to read every word. And after that, you'll probably be hungry for more.--

Has Crossan reviewed his work from the perspective that Jesus is a myth?

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-08-2005, 10:37 AM

I've read quite a bit of Crossan and I don't recall him ever entering the HJ/JM fray head on. He's one of the leading scholars in the Jesus Seminar and I think he pretty much follows along that sort of minimalist historical perspective. Absoulte mythicism is still a minority view in HJ scholarship, although it's gained more currency in the last few years and may become the dominant view in time.

That's not to say that Crossan is exactly a traditionalist. He accepts very little of the Gospels as historical and has written extensively on their provenance as literary fabrications created from the Hebrew Bible. Crossan accepts a common sayings tradition and a very few historical "acts" of Jesus (crucifixion, baptism by John, spiritual healer, Temple incident) but has no problem categorizing huge amounts of material (including the whole of the Nativities and the Passions and, of course, all miracles) as pious fiction.

Probably Crossan's most notorious theory, which struck traditionalists as shocking and insulting a few years ago but which has now gained credence as its plausibility has been examined more soberly, is that Jesus may never have been taken down from the cross but left there to rot. Crossan explains that this would have been typical and that most crucifixion victims were either left on the cross to become carrion for dogs and birds or that (at most) they were dumped into shallow, communal criminals' graves. Either way, Crossan rejects the empty tomb outright.

Amaleq13 · 04-08-2005, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Probably Crossan's most notorious theory, which struck traditionalists as shocking and insulting a few years ago but which has now gained credence as its plausibility has been examined more soberly, is that Jesus may never have been taken down from the cross but left there to rot. Crossan explains that this would have been typical and that most crucifixion victims were either left on the cross to become carrion for dogs and birds or that (at most) they were dumped into shallow, communal criminals' graves. Either way, Crossan rejects the empty tomb outright.

For Richard Carrier's opposition of Crossan on this point, read here.

noah · 04-09-2005, 01:19 PM

A number of people here and elsewhere make the reasonable assertion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and that the miracles associated with Jesus can not be proven, therefore they did not occur or can not be adduced as proof of Jesus' divinity.The argument usually ends there with both sides holding to some form of their original position, the skeptic to need for proof and the Christian to his/her faith.
However, I believe,we can present a more constructive challenge to the Christian by turning the argument of the skeptic around. Let us accept that Jesus did work all the miracles attributed to him. Let us also, however, point out that there are many individuals throughout history that are said to have performed miracles, for example Apollonius and various Egyptian and Vedic gods. (In the case of Appolonius, someone besides his followers, actually recorded his life.) Then ask the Christian why he or she believes in the purported miracles associated with Jesus and not those of other miracle workers that came before him. That usually makes for some enlightening discussion.

Regards,

John A. Broussard · 04-09-2005, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noah

ask the Christian why he or she believes in the purported miracles associated with Jesus and not those of other miracle workers that came before him. That usually makes for some enlightening discussion.

Regards,

You have hit at the nub of the problem involving the inerrancy of the bible. Invariably the true believer will say either:

1. Satan can work miracles to--to mislead us,

or, what is far more likely,

2. The other miracles are false reports, but Jesus's miracles actually happened since they are written in the bible, and the bible is the word of God.

noah · 04-09-2005, 11:30 PM

Yes. You are correct. That is how many if not most will respond. However, I usually come back with this:What proof do you have that it is Satan working these miracles? How can you be sure Satan is not responsible for the miracle stories in Christianity? If you wish to discredit the reports of miracles in other religious texts,tell me what criteria you are using to do so and tell me why that same criteria can not be brought to bear on the Christian miracle stories. If they retreat behind the "bible is the word of god" argument, I ask them why they have even bothered to discuss their belief if they had no intention of engaging in reasonable debate. Further, what proof can they offer that the bible, and not other religious texts,is the word of god.
Asking them whether they are familiar with the terms "tautology" or "arguing from authority" usually goes some way in opening up further debate.

Regards,

John A. Broussard · 04-10-2005, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noah

"arguing from authority"

Nope. I've tried that. The answer is that their authority is the ultimate authority.

View Poll Results: Was there a single, historical person at the root of the tales of Jesus Christ?
No. IMO Jesus is completely mythical.	99	29.46%
IMO Yes. Though many tales were added over time, there was a single great preacher/teacher who was the source of many of the stories about Jesus.	105	31.25%
Insufficient data. I withhold any opinion.	132	39.29%
Voters: 336. You may not vote on this poll

04-09-2005, 01:19 PM	#367
noah Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 287	Regarding miracles and proof A number of people here and elsewhere make the reasonable assertion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and that the miracles associated with Jesus can not be proven, therefore they did not occur or can not be adduced as proof of Jesus' divinity.The argument usually ends there with both sides holding to some form of their original position, the skeptic to need for proof and the Christian to his/her faith. However, I believe,we can present a more constructive challenge to the Christian by turning the argument of the skeptic around. Let us accept that Jesus did work all the miracles attributed to him. Let us also, however, point out that there are many individuals throughout history that are said to have performed miracles, for example Apollonius and various Egyptian and Vedic gods. (In the case of Appolonius, someone besides his followers, actually recorded his life.) Then ask the Christian why he or she believes in the purported miracles associated with Jesus and not those of other miracle workers that came before him. That usually makes for some enlightening discussion. Regards,

04-09-2005, 11:30 PM	#369
noah Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 287	Nice to meet you John! Yes. You are correct. That is how many if not most will respond. However, I usually come back with this:What proof do you have that it is Satan working these miracles? How can you be sure Satan is not responsible for the miracle stories in Christianity? If you wish to discredit the reports of miracles in other religious texts,tell me what criteria you are using to do so and tell me why that same criteria can not be brought to bear on the Christian miracle stories. If they retreat behind the "bible is the word of god" argument, I ask them why they have even bothered to discuss their belief if they had no intention of engaging in reasonable debate. Further, what proof can they offer that the bible, and not other religious texts,is the word of god. Asking them whether they are familiar with the terms "tautology" or "arguing from authority" usually goes some way in opening up further debate. Regards,

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-08-2005, 10:37 AM	#365
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I've read quite a bit of Crossan and I don't recall him ever entering the HJ/JM fray head on. He's one of the leading scholars in the Jesus Seminar and I think he pretty much follows along that sort of minimalist historical perspective. Absoulte mythicism is still a minority view in HJ scholarship, although it's gained more currency in the last few years and may become the dominant view in time. That's not to say that Crossan is exactly a traditionalist. He accepts very little of the Gospels as historical and has written extensively on their provenance as literary fabrications created from the Hebrew Bible. Crossan accepts a common sayings tradition and a very few historical "acts" of Jesus (crucifixion, baptism by John, spiritual healer, Temple incident) but has no problem categorizing huge amounts of material (including the whole of the Nativities and the Passions and, of course, all miracles) as pious fiction. Probably Crossan's most notorious theory, which struck traditionalists as shocking and insulting a few years ago but which has now gained credence as its plausibility has been examined more soberly, is that Jesus may never have been taken down from the cross but left there to rot. Crossan explains that this would have been typical and that most crucifixion victims were either left on the cross to become carrion for dogs and birds or that (at most) they were dumped into shallow, communal criminals' graves. Either way, Crossan rejects the empty tomb outright.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.