This lecture having taken place in 2000 and this being 2024, it isn’t surprising that new ideas are coming to the surface. I recently listened to a conversation between Bart Ehrman’s cohost, Megan Lewis and Robyn Faith Walsh. Robyn was talking about her book, The Origins of Early Christian Literature, Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture. I have read and listened to a lot of JDC, but Robyn brings some new and thought provoking ideas. Another author, Candide Moss, also brings new ideas. Very skilled enslaved peoples with experience in rhetoric and in contact with other enslaved people with similar skills using common tropes of the era composing the gospels. I was so fascinated that I purchased and am well over halfway finished reading Robyn’s book and having found and listened to five or six interviews. Thanks TH-cam!
I think his ideas about Jesus are the weakest I've heard. Historian Paul Maier seems to have a much greater grasp of the Jesus of history. His book "Genuine Jesus" is the best in this field by far!
I add the same reply as under your reply to my post: @rolfme5499 - You describe a fringe view among scholars. There have been a few mythicists among scholars since 1850 who claimed Jesus or even Paul were fictional characters, but today, there are hardly any left of those. . . . For example, if we assume that there was a Paul who wrote the six authentic epistles, we have this Paul mentioning in first Corinthians the brothers of Jesus and in Galatians reluctantly admitting having met the brother of Jesus, James, in Jerusalem. And we have Josephus describing the fall of the high priest Ananius over his illegal execution of James, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Messiah. Two independent sources for James, the brother of Jesus. And fictional characters don't have real brothers, so Jesus is not fictional.
@Achill101 Jesus is a fictional character! Saul of Tarsos was a professional liar! The gospels were made up by unknown professional liars! The texts attributed to Flavius Josephus and Publius Cornelius Tacitus are christian forgeries! No historian mentions the events described in the gospels! The bible is a collection of lies and fairy tales! .
@sallymorrison3994 You are extremely stupid because religion has damaged your brain! You asked for one historian, I named two and now you complain! You do not know what Richard Dawkins thinks! There are no miracles! Obviously you are too stupid to understand science! Your imaginary buddy Jesus never existed! I knew that even before I read Carrier and Fitzgerald! You are an extremely gullible child! That's why you still believe in fairies and in fairy tales! Unlike you I am an intelligent and educated adult! And unlike you I have read the bible! Go and play with your doll! .
Dom treats the expansion of productivity as a tool for expanding the financial gulf between the rich and poor. Holland is a perfect example to the contrary. In 5 years, between 1707-1712 Dutch created 200,000 flooded acres into magnificent food production by the technology of wind mills. That productivity increased the quality of life and food availabilty of everyone. It always depends on the social vision of the people. Improved wealth and productivity does not have to primarily benefit the wealthy. It requires social leadership which, as Dom points out, is not always available.
It is the divine question that brings the real debate. It isn't delusion as much as brainwashed. I mention this many times in my own vids. When you are told something as a child and educated about it continuously in your school followed by multiple days a week in your church---you believe it. This is what I ask the Christian (former Christian here). How much have you actually researched? And researching doesn't mean reading a book by one of your own and just agreeing with it because it matches your already programmed worldview. It means checking for legitimacy. All of us deconverts were once Christians. And we did the research and as I always tell my own people. If you do the research you won't be a Christian for very long. Cheers, DCF
its really shocking that anyone agrees with this man. his points are poorly made and as he Admits they can easily be explained. he tried to make everything a parable so that he can make Yeshua in to who he wants him to be justas all those involved in the jesus seminar. the fact is this man has no authority to make any claims a about Yeshua. the historical Jesus is the one found in scripture. i pray you may not be decieved by this man so as to twist scripture and our Lord Yeshua into what you want him to be. the fact is you are a sinner who is in desperate need of a savior. YHWH himself entered his creation and died on the cross to pay your debt. ישוע is Lord. יהוה our God the triune God of scripture is Holy righteous and Just and i pray you all know him
*Christianity wrong doctrine* Prominent Bible scholar & ex Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan says: * Jesus was not God. * Jesus called for nonviolent resistance to Rome and just distribution of land and food. *Jesus was crucified* because he threatened Roman stability -- *not as a sacrifice to God for humanity's sins* * Jesus did not resurrect from death. I myself 75℅ agree with Crossan's views of Jesus. * As a Muslim I believe that Jesus was sent to Israelites. What for? Just the same mission as other Jewish prophets (Moses, Elija, Isaiah, Jeremia, etc), ie to ENFORCE Torah Law that had been violated many times by Jews (worship idols, kill, steal, bribery, adultery, etc). As strong indications that Jesus was sent not to redeem original sin on the cross, let's observe these: 1. Before Jesus was caught by Roman, he was afraid, hid, told his disciples to buy swords, sad, prostrated & prayed. 2. By time machine, I'm flying to Golgotta hill 2000 years ago. *I see Jesus was hanging on the cross, naked & tortured with blood shedding.* What will I do? *A. I am very sad & must save Jesus.* I will beg Pilate to free him from the cross. *B. I am sad but also joyful* because Jesus will atone for my sins. So, *I just watch Jesus being tortured* because only through such a sadistic way I can live eternally in heaven. Muslims and JD Crossan will definitely choose A. Meanwhile, Christians who hold traditional view will not choose an answer. *That means Jesus was sent NOT to redeem original sin on the cross.*
Genesis is based right off the bat on two myths and continues in monomyths from there. Christianity and Islam are based downstream from there. Figure out why it's fake and what parts are real.
This Jesuit's only goal is to keep you guessing, to undermine faith in the holy scriptures 📖 Ever since the dark ages; then Martin Luther came with the reformation.
Thank you for uploading this lecture. I liked especially his introduction that we should look to comparative anthropology, history writing, and archeology to understand better the setting of the gospel. . . . And after having heard so many descriptions of Jesus as apocalyptic prophets, it was good to hear a slightly different view that was well-argued.
@rolfme5499 - You describe a fringe view among scholars. There have been a few mythicists among scholars since 1850 who claimed Jesus or even Paul were fictional characters, but today, there are hardly any left of those. . . . For example, if we assume that there was a Paul who wrote the six authentic epistles, we have this Paul mentioning in first Corinthians the brothers of Jesus and in Galatians reluctantly admitting having met the brother of Jesus, James, in Jerusalem. And we have Josephus describing the fall of the high priest Ananius over his illegal execution of James, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Messiah. Two independent sources for James, the brother of Jesus. And fictional characters don't have real brothers, so Jesus is not fictional.
@Achill101 Among intelligent people there is no discussion! Jesus is a fictional character made up by unknown professional liars! Saul of Tarsos was a professional liar! The texts attributed to Flavius Josephus are 3rd century christian forgeries! Fictional characters have fictional families! .
Jesus purpose is to save humanity from a alleged original sin by Adam and Eve. However, since we all evolved from the homo line and were therefore not created by any entity, as the scribe of Genesis claimed, then there was no Adam nor Eve who could commit such original sin and therefore, the is no need for Jesus to save human from sin. Now, even the Mosaic law are suspected to not having happened at all because, there is no proof of such as the alleged Ark of the Covenant where the so call commandments only exists in the imagination of the scribe who wrote Exodus. Thus, not even sin from those commandments could occur as there are no proof that such commandments exist. Besides, the alleged lineage of Jesus coming from the line of Adam is suspect as there is no proof that Adam even existed as well as that of Noah. The story of Noah was just lifted from the Sumerian mythology of the Flood and thus also myth. So, even the Noahite commandments are suspect also. So, so called prophesies of Jesus arrival and then Jesus fullfilling those prophesies of so called Cristus or Mesiah or Savior are but self fulfilling prophesies by scribes who read first the Old Testament prophesis and perhaps modeled or adjusted their narratives to make it look like that Jesus, the son of Joseph and Mary is the fulfillment of those prophesies. Mind you, there were many citizens of Jerusalem with the names of Jesus, Joseph or even Mary, which make them higher in likelihod for someone to say "Yes", there were people who were named Jesus or Yeshuah or Joshuah.
I wish we could plug Mary, the mother of Jesus, into the slot - ''the one that Jesus loved". Later, from James, also plug the Blessed Virgin into the cognomen, ''Theophilos'. The miracle at Xana would be a sound foundation for this construction as a guest would never assume to amend wedding arrangements. She might be the power behind the scenes. Interesting transition after John the Baptist was eliminated. He turned it into a movement by many which could survive the loss of one or more heads.
Excellent Dominic! Once again, after first doing so about 20 some years ago, I'm reading your "Jesus: A Revolutionary Bioraphy". During these past couple decades much has changed in our present time. Much of it, not unlike the time 2000 years ago, is repeating itself. Different icons, similarly inclined followers. I would go as far as claiming that collective psychoses are recurring, perhaps ongoing social ailments. Since WE can't cure them, Evolution will. Not necessarily to our advantage.
This is definitely to me an enlightening lecture on the historical Jesus even delivered 21 years ago (can some verify the year please?). I think to truly benefit from it, we have to put our belief aside temporarily whether you are atheist or Christian. This lecture is not to prove if Jesus is God or not. We all can have our finally say.
There is no extra biblical evidence for Jesus in the first century, so what exactly is this guy studying? He is taking stories that contain demonic possessions, the dead rising in Jerusalem, and an impossible three hour eclipse as historical documents
Which lecture were you watching? He is very clear about not taking the gospels as historical documents, e.g. the birth story in Matthew, around 57:00 . . . If you want to claim Jesus was NOT a historical person but only a myth, you're free to do so, but you would need to explain the documents that we do have, why and how they were written. Just claiming they were all religious nuts back then would not cut it.
@Peter T I didn't claim the people that wrote the gospels were nuts I claim they are not historical documents. He obviously believes they are historical documents as he is saying such In the video and claiming they have historic basis, even though none exist. You are misrepresenting both our positions.
@@pmtoner9852- you claim now the gospels have no historical basis, which is different from not being historical documents. I claim the gospels tell us a lot about the people who wrote them (four Greek-writing early Christians 66-100CE) and the memory their communities had preserved of Jesus. . . . The lecture draws a plausible line from political changes in Galilee to Jesus' preaching to the rise of Christianity at the end of the first century CE. He cannot document every step, due to a dearth of sources, but it would be up to his critics, e.g. you, to point to what is contradicted or maybe implausible in his hypothesis.
@Peter T no evidence any of the gospel stories are true or based on history. Much evidence the Gospels are fiction: miracles, possessions, 3 hour eclipses, walking dead, virgin birth, anachronistic acts by pilate and the pharasies, false accounts of history (herod killing the firstborn) and many more. His whole lecture presupposes the Gospels represent actual events.
@@pmtoner9852 - Crossan's assumption is that we can give an account of the historical Jesus that is, ofc, much shorter than the account by the gospels but that fulfills the demands of a historian. There have been many historians who have studied the historical Jesus, and Crossan is among them. There have been also some scholars, fewer but still earnest, who denied we could give any account of the historical Jesus, and you might count yourself as supporter of the latter. But Crossan's approach here seems solid, he builds on widely accepted results from historical Jesus research: being a disciple of or otherwise related to John the Baptist who get the news of John's execution, who becomes a preacher in his own right, before he is crucified by Pontius Pilate while his disciples are let go. . . . Crossan additionally thinks that Jesus' command to his disciples to go out and do like him is historical - Crossan bases that on the rough commands in Mark that are moderated in Luke amd Matthew - I don't know what other scholars of the historical Jesus say to that claim. We know Paul and other apostles behaved as in the command and that John the Baptist didn't seem to have a similar command, so using the criteria of multiple sources and dissimilarity Crossan's claim seems to me to be at least plausible.
ALMIGHTY YHWH. YAHWEH. NE IS NOT ADONAI. ELOHIM. KYRIUS. THEOS. DOMINUS. GOTT. GOD, LORD. DEUS. ALLAH. HIS SON IS YAHSHUA HA MESHAIAYAH. THE TRUE CHRIST. AN IMMORTAL BEING. SINCE AD 30. 1ST RESURRECTION. COULD NEVER BE THE ROMAN FALSE CHRIST FROM AD 130. IESUS. YAHSHUA MEANS YAHWEH IS SALVATION. SUS IN HEBREW IS HORSE. PIG IN GREEK. IESUS IS ISLAM ISSA. MODERN JESUS. ANTIYAHSHUA NAME. ANTICHRIST NAME. FALSE CHRST FROM AD 130. 2ND RESURRECTION. LEARN TRUTH. TEACH TRUTH.
Scholars of history: Hey, if your empire has got to put down rebellions all the time, that means your policies are not working! Romans: What policies? Now pray for the wellbeing of our lord and saviour, Augustus Caesar!
I keep thinking who does he remind me of. Ken Ham. It's something in his body movements. Now you'll never be able to unthink that thought. You're welcome.
I have watched a few of Dominic’s lectures now and I am confused or he his, likely the former to be fair. He seems to have a weird opinion on the historical Jesus, which is weird in its self, but it is as if he doesn’t actually believe that Jesus the man was the son of God. He appears to believe in the message and not necessarily the messenger. I think he has philosophised a step to far and got lost.
Well, his approach is historical criticism; not theology. He is making a distinction between the historical man, Jesus of Nazareth, and the theological concept of Jesus Christ. The former is a man, likely born to a Jewish peasant couple in Nazareth, one of a number of siblings (James being historical, for example), whose life has been very broadly constructed using historical methods. The latter is a religious figure born of a virgin peasant woman in Bethlehem, thus fulfilling a criterion of messianic prophecy, and the God of Israel's only begotten son. The former is not theologically sufficient, while the latter is not historically consistent. He's an academic, not a preacher. His personal beliefs, whether religious or not, are entirely separate from his scholarly work.
You need to listen and read more of Don’s writings. He does not believe that Jesus was god or that Jesus is accurately represented in Christian literature. Jesus was a charcature of common views of roaming self described prophets. Bart Erman, professor of Early Church history is a former fundamentalist turned atheist. One has to be honest with real history of the church and be willing to make a decision as to whether the facts deserve the faith we place in the Jesus story. But as Christian’s, we can’t be content with a pablum based make believe history of the person of Jesus.
Great
This lecture having taken place in 2000 and this being 2024, it isn’t surprising that new ideas are coming to the surface. I recently listened to a conversation between Bart Ehrman’s cohost, Megan Lewis and Robyn Faith Walsh. Robyn was talking about her book, The Origins of Early Christian Literature, Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture. I have read and listened to a lot of JDC, but Robyn brings some new and thought provoking ideas. Another author, Candide Moss, also brings new ideas. Very skilled enslaved peoples with experience in rhetoric and in contact with other enslaved people with similar skills using common tropes of the era composing the gospels. I was so fascinated that I purchased and am well over halfway finished reading Robyn’s book and having found and listened to five or six interviews. Thanks TH-cam!
what a fruit
I think his ideas about Jesus are the weakest I've heard. Historian Paul Maier seems to have a much greater grasp of the Jesus of history. His book "Genuine Jesus" is the best in this field by far!
77 minutes of meaningless gibberish! Religion damages the brain! .
The fictional god of the bible hates humans! The fictional Jesus hates humans! .
" kingdom of god " There are no gods! This guy lives in an imaginary fairy tale world populated with fictional characters! .
History is not Theology. Theology is not History. However, both are Buddha. *Gassho with a Deep Bow*
Love the overall macro and micro take from all angles he gives to his lectures. Brilliant.
@everttherandez7099 This " lecture " is meaningless gibberish! .
If there’s anyone who gets who the real Jesus was it’s this man
Jesus is a fictional character made up by unknown professional liars! .
I add the same reply as under your reply to my post: @rolfme5499 - You describe a fringe view among scholars. There have been a few mythicists among scholars since 1850 who claimed Jesus or even Paul were fictional characters, but today, there are hardly any left of those. . . . For example, if we assume that there was a Paul who wrote the six authentic epistles, we have this Paul mentioning in first Corinthians the brothers of Jesus and in Galatians reluctantly admitting having met the brother of Jesus, James, in Jerusalem. And we have Josephus describing the fall of the high priest Ananius over his illegal execution of James, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Messiah. Two independent sources for James, the brother of Jesus. And fictional characters don't have real brothers, so Jesus is not fictional.
@Achill101 Jesus is a fictional character! Saul of Tarsos was a professional liar! The gospels were made up by unknown professional liars! The texts attributed to Flavius Josephus and Publius Cornelius Tacitus are christian forgeries! No historian mentions the events described in the gospels! The bible is a collection of lies and fairy tales! .
sallymorrison3994 Obviously you are not familiar with real historians! .
@sallymorrison3994 Ohh, you want to leave your infantile fairy tale world? Richard Carrier David Fitzgerald There is a lot to learn ahead of you! .
@sallymorrison3994 You are extremely stupid because religion has damaged your brain! You asked for one historian, I named two and now you complain! You do not know what Richard Dawkins thinks! There are no miracles! Obviously you are too stupid to understand science! Your imaginary buddy Jesus never existed! I knew that even before I read Carrier and Fitzgerald! You are an extremely gullible child! That's why you still believe in fairies and in fairy tales! Unlike you I am an intelligent and educated adult! And unlike you I have read the bible! Go and play with your doll! .
Jesus has been shoved down my throat ever since I came to this country. It ruined my life. The Jehovah was for Israel not the whole world.
Dom treats the expansion of productivity as a tool for expanding the financial gulf between the rich and poor. Holland is a perfect example to the contrary. In 5 years, between 1707-1712 Dutch created 200,000 flooded acres into magnificent food production by the technology of wind mills. That productivity increased the quality of life and food availabilty of everyone. It always depends on the social vision of the people. Improved wealth and productivity does not have to primarily benefit the wealthy. It requires social leadership which, as Dom points out, is not always available.
If you wanna be led astray by a false teacher, than this turd is your man.
It is the divine question that brings the real debate. It isn't delusion as much as brainwashed. I mention this many times in my own vids. When you are told something as a child and educated about it continuously in your school followed by multiple days a week in your church---you believe it. This is what I ask the Christian (former Christian here). How much have you actually researched? And researching doesn't mean reading a book by one of your own and just agreeing with it because it matches your already programmed worldview. It means checking for legitimacy. All of us deconverts were once Christians. And we did the research and as I always tell my own people. If you do the research you won't be a Christian for very long. Cheers, DCF
Lost me on the aristocrats give out loans then forclose on the peasants
its really shocking that anyone agrees with this man. his points are poorly made and as he Admits they can easily be explained. he tried to make everything a parable so that he can make Yeshua in to who he wants him to be justas all those involved in the jesus seminar. the fact is this man has no authority to make any claims a about Yeshua. the historical Jesus is the one found in scripture. i pray you may not be decieved by this man so as to twist scripture and our Lord Yeshua into what you want him to be. the fact is you are a sinner who is in desperate need of a savior. YHWH himself entered his creation and died on the cross to pay your debt. ישוע is Lord. יהוה our God the triune God of scripture is Holy righteous and Just and i pray you all know him
*Christianity wrong doctrine* Prominent Bible scholar & ex Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan says: * Jesus was not God. * Jesus called for nonviolent resistance to Rome and just distribution of land and food. *Jesus was crucified* because he threatened Roman stability -- *not as a sacrifice to God for humanity's sins* * Jesus did not resurrect from death. I myself 75℅ agree with Crossan's views of Jesus. * As a Muslim I believe that Jesus was sent to Israelites. What for? Just the same mission as other Jewish prophets (Moses, Elija, Isaiah, Jeremia, etc), ie to ENFORCE Torah Law that had been violated many times by Jews (worship idols, kill, steal, bribery, adultery, etc). As strong indications that Jesus was sent not to redeem original sin on the cross, let's observe these: 1. Before Jesus was caught by Roman, he was afraid, hid, told his disciples to buy swords, sad, prostrated & prayed. 2. By time machine, I'm flying to Golgotta hill 2000 years ago. *I see Jesus was hanging on the cross, naked & tortured with blood shedding.* What will I do? *A. I am very sad & must save Jesus.* I will beg Pilate to free him from the cross. *B. I am sad but also joyful* because Jesus will atone for my sins. So, *I just watch Jesus being tortured* because only through such a sadistic way I can live eternally in heaven. Muslims and JD Crossan will definitely choose A. Meanwhile, Christians who hold traditional view will not choose an answer. *That means Jesus was sent NOT to redeem original sin on the cross.*
Genesis is based right off the bat on two myths and continues in monomyths from there. Christianity and Islam are based downstream from there. Figure out why it's fake and what parts are real.
This video is also fantastic that is if you are interested in God or Jesus. th-cam.com/video/wU1CSZaCs7Y/w-d-xo.html
This Jesuit's only goal is to keep you guessing, to undermine faith in the holy scriptures 📖 Ever since the dark ages; then Martin Luther came with the reformation.
Thank you for uploading this lecture. I liked especially his introduction that we should look to comparative anthropology, history writing, and archeology to understand better the setting of the gospel. . . . And after having heard so many descriptions of Jesus as apocalyptic prophets, it was good to hear a slightly different view that was well-argued.
The only
Iuiiuuuuuuiui
@Achill101 Jesus is a fictional character! The gospels were made up by unknown professional liars! There is no apocalypse! .
@rolfme5499 - You describe a fringe view among scholars. There have been a few mythicists among scholars since 1850 who claimed Jesus or even Paul were fictional characters, but today, there are hardly any left of those. . . . For example, if we assume that there was a Paul who wrote the six authentic epistles, we have this Paul mentioning in first Corinthians the brothers of Jesus and in Galatians reluctantly admitting having met the brother of Jesus, James, in Jerusalem. And we have Josephus describing the fall of the high priest Ananius over his illegal execution of James, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Messiah. Two independent sources for James, the brother of Jesus. And fictional characters don't have real brothers, so Jesus is not fictional.
@Achill101 Among intelligent people there is no discussion! Jesus is a fictional character made up by unknown professional liars! Saul of Tarsos was a professional liar! The texts attributed to Flavius Josephus are 3rd century christian forgeries! Fictional characters have fictional families! .
Extra ordinary spich good information
"Yes, Jesus was an Irish imp of social justice. Read the shards."
Jive....
Jesus purpose is to save humanity from a alleged original sin by Adam and Eve. However, since we all evolved from the homo line and were therefore not created by any entity, as the scribe of Genesis claimed, then there was no Adam nor Eve who could commit such original sin and therefore, the is no need for Jesus to save human from sin. Now, even the Mosaic law are suspected to not having happened at all because, there is no proof of such as the alleged Ark of the Covenant where the so call commandments only exists in the imagination of the scribe who wrote Exodus. Thus, not even sin from those commandments could occur as there are no proof that such commandments exist. Besides, the alleged lineage of Jesus coming from the line of Adam is suspect as there is no proof that Adam even existed as well as that of Noah. The story of Noah was just lifted from the Sumerian mythology of the Flood and thus also myth. So, even the Noahite commandments are suspect also. So, so called prophesies of Jesus arrival and then Jesus fullfilling those prophesies of so called Cristus or Mesiah or Savior are but self fulfilling prophesies by scribes who read first the Old Testament prophesis and perhaps modeled or adjusted their narratives to make it look like that Jesus, the son of Joseph and Mary is the fulfillment of those prophesies. Mind you, there were many citizens of Jerusalem with the names of Jesus, Joseph or even Mary, which make them higher in likelihod for someone to say "Yes", there were people who were named Jesus or Yeshuah or Joshuah.
I wish we could plug Mary, the mother of Jesus, into the slot - ''the one that Jesus loved". Later, from James, also plug the Blessed Virgin into the cognomen, ''Theophilos'. The miracle at Xana would be a sound foundation for this construction as a guest would never assume to amend wedding arrangements. She might be the power behind the scenes. Interesting transition after John the Baptist was eliminated. He turned it into a movement by many which could survive the loss of one or more heads.
Excellent Dominic! Once again, after first doing so about 20 some years ago, I'm reading your "Jesus: A Revolutionary Bioraphy". During these past couple decades much has changed in our present time. Much of it, not unlike the time 2000 years ago, is repeating itself. Different icons, similarly inclined followers. I would go as far as claiming that collective psychoses are recurring, perhaps ongoing social ailments. Since WE can't cure them, Evolution will. Not necessarily to our advantage.
This is definitely to me an enlightening lecture on the historical Jesus even delivered 21 years ago (can some verify the year please?). I think to truly benefit from it, we have to put our belief aside temporarily whether you are atheist or Christian. This lecture is not to prove if Jesus is God or not. We all can have our finally say.
Jesus such lewd and lucivious behavior It made Nero blush with with envy.
It's a known fact Jesus Christ was a drag is drag Queen...... With confused Homosexual Desires and wantons.
There is no extra biblical evidence for Jesus in the first century, so what exactly is this guy studying? He is taking stories that contain demonic possessions, the dead rising in Jerusalem, and an impossible three hour eclipse as historical documents
Which lecture were you watching? He is very clear about not taking the gospels as historical documents, e.g. the birth story in Matthew, around 57:00 . . . If you want to claim Jesus was NOT a historical person but only a myth, you're free to do so, but you would need to explain the documents that we do have, why and how they were written. Just claiming they were all religious nuts back then would not cut it.
@Peter T I didn't claim the people that wrote the gospels were nuts I claim they are not historical documents. He obviously believes they are historical documents as he is saying such In the video and claiming they have historic basis, even though none exist. You are misrepresenting both our positions.
@@pmtoner9852- you claim now the gospels have no historical basis, which is different from not being historical documents. I claim the gospels tell us a lot about the people who wrote them (four Greek-writing early Christians 66-100CE) and the memory their communities had preserved of Jesus. . . . The lecture draws a plausible line from political changes in Galilee to Jesus' preaching to the rise of Christianity at the end of the first century CE. He cannot document every step, due to a dearth of sources, but it would be up to his critics, e.g. you, to point to what is contradicted or maybe implausible in his hypothesis.
@Peter T no evidence any of the gospel stories are true or based on history. Much evidence the Gospels are fiction: miracles, possessions, 3 hour eclipses, walking dead, virgin birth, anachronistic acts by pilate and the pharasies, false accounts of history (herod killing the firstborn) and many more. His whole lecture presupposes the Gospels represent actual events.
@@pmtoner9852 - Crossan's assumption is that we can give an account of the historical Jesus that is, ofc, much shorter than the account by the gospels but that fulfills the demands of a historian. There have been many historians who have studied the historical Jesus, and Crossan is among them. There have been also some scholars, fewer but still earnest, who denied we could give any account of the historical Jesus, and you might count yourself as supporter of the latter. But Crossan's approach here seems solid, he builds on widely accepted results from historical Jesus research: being a disciple of or otherwise related to John the Baptist who get the news of John's execution, who becomes a preacher in his own right, before he is crucified by Pontius Pilate while his disciples are let go. . . . Crossan additionally thinks that Jesus' command to his disciples to go out and do like him is historical - Crossan bases that on the rough commands in Mark that are moderated in Luke amd Matthew - I don't know what other scholars of the historical Jesus say to that claim. We know Paul and other apostles behaved as in the command and that John the Baptist didn't seem to have a similar command, so using the criteria of multiple sources and dissimilarity Crossan's claim seems to me to be at least plausible.
ALMIGHTY YHWH. YAHWEH. NE IS NOT ADONAI. ELOHIM. KYRIUS. THEOS. DOMINUS. GOTT. GOD, LORD. DEUS. ALLAH. HIS SON IS YAHSHUA HA MESHAIAYAH. THE TRUE CHRIST. AN IMMORTAL BEING. SINCE AD 30. 1ST RESURRECTION. COULD NEVER BE THE ROMAN FALSE CHRIST FROM AD 130. IESUS. YAHSHUA MEANS YAHWEH IS SALVATION. SUS IN HEBREW IS HORSE. PIG IN GREEK. IESUS IS ISLAM ISSA. MODERN JESUS. ANTIYAHSHUA NAME. ANTICHRIST NAME. FALSE CHRST FROM AD 130. 2ND RESURRECTION. LEARN TRUTH. TEACH TRUTH.
Writing in all caps is SCREAMING. Please don't do it (except if you're possessed).
i do not agree with everything this man says but i think he is brilliant and i could listen to him all day .
excellent,
Scholars of history: Hey, if your empire has got to put down rebellions all the time, that means your policies are not working! Romans: What policies? Now pray for the wellbeing of our lord and saviour, Augustus Caesar!
Thank you for posting this!
Get educated Jesus never existed th-cam.com/video/zmEScIUcvz0/w-d-xo.html
Your linked video claims Jesus was invented by the Romans to pacify the Jews. I find it unconvincing.
Interesting and informative. Thank you.
Outstanding. Thank you!
You are false teacher you accusing the historical jesus is false. You are rediculous
Learn to spell.
What do you think he is accusing the historical Jesus of?
Crossan never knew Jesus, very sad for him, I know Jesus Christ I have seen him, I even took his picture of his face in the clouds. God bless you.
@Christian Cullen no but you will be Satan's peeon
That's called pareidolia.
@@jesusfappingchrist2094 maybe for you, I called it the appearing, and I love his appearing.
Wasn't it on a cheese toast? He likes appearing on those
@@richardverrall534 Jesus consist on everything
a subject of early Christian cornucopia, offered in a bland manner, cold auditorium setting. lacking intimacy of spirit.
James anonymous : need to learn to be good students then live well ....
I keep thinking who does he remind me of. Ken Ham. It's something in his body movements. Now you'll never be able to unthink that thought. You're welcome.
Interesting.
Seems like they WERE all astounded when Jesus rose from the dead. That's the whole point of the story.
That is obviously mythology or parable.
You really listen to his speeches, he always find a way to leave that part out. you don't too much hear him talkin about the resurrection of Christ
good proof too!
I have watched a few of Dominic’s lectures now and I am confused or he his, likely the former to be fair. He seems to have a weird opinion on the historical Jesus, which is weird in its self, but it is as if he doesn’t actually believe that Jesus the man was the son of God. He appears to believe in the message and not necessarily the messenger. I think he has philosophised a step to far and got lost.
Well, his approach is historical criticism; not theology. He is making a distinction between the historical man, Jesus of Nazareth, and the theological concept of Jesus Christ. The former is a man, likely born to a Jewish peasant couple in Nazareth, one of a number of siblings (James being historical, for example), whose life has been very broadly constructed using historical methods. The latter is a religious figure born of a virgin peasant woman in Bethlehem, thus fulfilling a criterion of messianic prophecy, and the God of Israel's only begotten son. The former is not theologically sufficient, while the latter is not historically consistent. He's an academic, not a preacher. His personal beliefs, whether religious or not, are entirely separate from his scholarly work.
I think you need to just listen to his message and not worry about the eternal state of the man’s soul, he’s like 80 now.
You need to listen and read more of Don’s writings. He does not believe that Jesus was god or that Jesus is accurately represented in Christian literature. Jesus was a charcature of common views of roaming self described prophets. Bart Erman, professor of Early Church history is a former fundamentalist turned atheist. One has to be honest with real history of the church and be willing to make a decision as to whether the facts deserve the faith we place in the Jesus story. But as Christian’s, we can’t be content with a pablum based make believe history of the person of Jesus.
The best historical evidence of the turmoil in the first century I've ever heard
Was
no one noticed anything in the 20s or 30 in regard of a dead arameic speaking preacher as no one wrote a single word about him at the time.
WHY DOES HE ASSUME THERE WAS A HISTORICAL JESUS?
Crossan never really makes any solid points; he just rambles on.
i think he is liberal
@ I think he is using Jesus to spread Marxism.
Because he's studying the Jesus in the past and the current Jesus.