Dude you are such a gifted speaker and interlocuter for these scholarly interviews. I hope you keep doing them! Looking forward to watching all of this.
Absolutely, it is the only way to understand the historical person of Paul. If we fail to understand Second Temple Judaism, we fail to understand Jesus and subsequently Paul.
2:06:04 I love Dr. Dominic's almost parable of humans being the iceberg, not the Titanic, and the implication that the Divine Intervention may actually end up being melting the hardness of our icy hearts to add to the water in the ocean and allow for a peaceful voyage of God's world.
This is amazing! I've been wishing for an "eli15" presentation from Dr Crossan, and here it is! I am much older than the host, but, like him, I am thoughtful and passionate about learning, and I haven't spent decades in academic research on these topics. Thanks to Dr Crossan for being so patient and clear. Thanks to Nahoa Life for providing this - I hope your future is full of deep learning.
What Crossan says...his spin is false. St Paul changed from the Pharisee Saul of Tarsus. He preached Jesus as the Christ, did not keep Jewish ritual, worship or legal precepts. He upbraded Peter for his keeping of Jewish customs but then changing his tune with gentile Christians. Pauls nessage was I am a Jew but now a Christian and I invite Jews to the same and gentiles too without being Jewish in ritual but something news and different... a Christian. Paul also used his Roman citizenship and died the death of a Roman convicted of being a Christian...nlt a Jew with Peter following him to Rome and dying a martyrs death.
@johnfisher247 I think your argument is a religious one, and that's fine. It would be suitable if you were arguing with someone from the church down the street who also reads scripture and came up with a different conclusion from yours. Dr. Crossan is speaking from an academic analysis of texts and history. There's nothing inherently "better" about that, but it's a different style of thought. Calling his take "false," based on a particular faith tradition or personal reading of the Bible won't have much impact, because he isn't talking about those things. Academics are fine with disagreement, and with discussing the research evidence of different points of view, but they aren't particularly interested in proving things true or false.
I love your interviews. I am aetheist and your protestant, but I don't detect a bias in your line of questioning. Just genuine curiosity and willingness to try and understand, which is exactly where I am coming from.
There is no way that Luke invented those speeches with Paul as a source in the 60s. Let's be honest, Luke wrote this while Paul was in chains in Caesarea. Luke was written in the 60s while Paul was still alive; lots of reasons for this and scholarship has slowly moved to understand Luke as having access to eye witness testimony. You can't have that testimony too late; everyone would be dead! Christians good, Jews bad? That is not what is going on at all. Luke himself was a Jew, and Theophilus was most likely a Jew who commissioned this to be written. We know Luke is a Jew because Luke was not apart of the accusation against Paul for bringing Trophimus into the Temple. Luke, along with Paul, are looking to prove themselves as not being Sicarii; this is the very reason Paul is in chains! Theophilus pays Luke to write and compile; but it's also a massive defense of Paul! Jesus' movement is not sicarii; it is a movement of peace and openness to Gentiles - and that is why Luke controls his narrative to show how the Jesus movement was open to Gentiles - AKA Cornelius! Luke is absolutely writing an apologetic; but he is not writing a Roman Christianity! The parting of the ways explains why the original Second Temple Jewish understanding of our faith was lost to gentile influence and dominance. Luke is writing in the genre of ancient history, just like Josephus, but he does craft the narrative just like Josephus does with the speeches as Massada. But Luke had access to the primary sources; Josephuses clearly uses those characters as mouth pieces as an apologetic for the Jews to the Romans as a PR stunt. There is no way that Luke used Mark. There are SO many problems with this view. In triplet renditions, (agreement with Matthean, Markan, and Lucan accounts) Luke's version is nearly always better. For example, it gets very specific Second Temple Jewish details, wording, syntax, and Hebraisms over Mark. Mark lacks contemporary historical detail. Why would a later Gospels have better details? This doesn't make sense. Scholars have recognized Luke’s version and account of the events of Jesus’ last hours derived from a more primitive, non-Markan source. Luke does not know of a nighttime interrogation, which seemingly derived from Mark’s pen due to a desire to “fill the empty space” in the narrative. Moreover, Luke has no knowledge of Jesus before the Jewish Sanhedrin, which did not exist during the days of Jesus. Herod the Great, when he became king, apparently disbanded the body of the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem due to their opposition to him, particularly at a previous trial of his. It was reestablished either by Agrippa I (AD 41-44) or, more likely, after the death of Agrippa I when Rome brought all of Agrippa’s kingdom under the oversight of the procurators. Luke-Acts preserves this historical nuance. In the narratives prior to the time of Agrippa I, the term “Sanhedrin” refers to the “council chamber,” the Chamber of Hewn Stone (לשכת הגזית; m. Pe’ah 2:6; m. Sanhedrin 11:2; m. Middot 5:4; y. Sanhedrin 19c; b. Yoma 25a), where the Jewish council met (in and around the Temple Mount).[4] After the death of Agrippa I, Luke used the term “Sanhedrin” to refer to the council itself. The appearance in Mark and Matthew of the full Sanhedrin is anachronistic, reflecting the later situation. John also does not know of Jesus standing before a session of the Jewish Sanhedrin.
"You will see the son of man, seated at the right hand of the power, riding on the clouds of heaven." And Steven "I see the son of man seated at the right hand of the power, coming on the clouds of heaven." Were later additions? Or no
Really great interview again, appreciate your approach to these dialogues! Have you ever been to SBL conference? It's in your part of the country next month in San Diego and lots of these scholars are there and approachable.
@@nahoalife954 what are your thoughts on Dr. Brad H. Young and James R Edwards who propose that Luke’s gospel contains the most “Hebrewisms” in terms of its style/composition compared to the other synoptic gospels? James even proposes that he may have used the “Hebrew Gospel” mentioned by many of the church fathers for centuries, as a source.
Absolutely beautiful. Those were some digging questions, but I agreed with his answers. A solid interview from both of you 💯 (My agreement is the standard of quality, obviously!)
The idea of Paul remaining Jewish is an idea that was at the very center of the thinking of the late Jacob Taubes. His political theology of Paul is very thought provoking and it highlights the nuances of Paul as an intermediary between Jews and non-Jews in the emerging Christian world of that period.
The only issue is in practice terms he was beaten and persecuted by Jews because like Stephen and St James he said and held Jesus is God. In terms of Jewish ritual law Paul repudiated circumcision, keeping of Saturday which is the Jewish Sabbath replaced by the Dominica or Lord's Day and not keeping kosher food rules and much else required by Judaism. Therefore he was not an observant Jews but something else...a Jewish non gentile Christian.
@ Yes, I agree with your analysis here. The tension between the purportedly Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians is very evident in the New Testament particularly over the issue of circumcision. Paul occupies an unusual middle ground in many ways almost acting as a kind of transitory individual bridging the two worlds together.
@@johnfisher247 You are totally wrong. You do not understand, what the real Paul says. Paul was No Christian, is a very good and elobarte book by Pamela Eisenbaum. She gives a very clear view, and underlines what Crossan is saying, but from a Jewish perspective.
Religion is based on faith not facts. If Paul was really a serial killer, a worshiper of Thor, or whatever it doesn't matter because the believers won't believe anything that contradicts what they want to believe.
That's a very common dichotomy you assume: faith vs facts. There's a whole host of literature to explore about the nature of belief, trust, evidence, etc. I would caution against generalizing "the believers" as being intractably pious. It's unreasonable to assert that all theists are unreceptive; it's also unreasonable to assert that all atheists or agnostics are unreceptive. There are better ways to make dialectical progress. For example, you could immerse yourself in academic work and engage with the content in a critical, charitable way.
Paul was a "Christ-following" Pharisee? Then why do Paul's teachings from the epistles completely contradict what Jesus is recorded as having taught about salvation in the Gospels?
Colossians 1:15-20: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible… For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.” This emphasizes that Jesus embodies the fullness of God2
@ALBIZURES being dwelt with the fullness of the Godhead is not the same as _being_ the Godhead, or part of the Godhead. Plus the notion that Paul actually even wrote Colossians is very dubious.
Because Jesus came for the lost sheep of the house of Judah, no for the gentiles. After the religious leaders of Israel rejected Jesus and later on the Holly Ghost when they killed Steven in acts 7, Jesus appears to Paul and shows him the Revelation of the body of Christ, in which there is no more Jew or Gentile, but Christ in All. That's why it is a different message, because they where preaching to two different group of people before and after the resurrection of Christ. It is not a contradiction, only change of dispensation of Grace.
@@ByGraceThroughFaith777 I've refuted these dispensational lies so many times I'm not going to waste my time again. It's the same thing over and over so I'm just going to make it plain: Paul was a liar who spread a different message of salvation than Jesus. Scholars don't even think "Paul" wrote most of the "Pauline" epistles, but rather they are forgeries written during the time of the early church. Dispensationalists just try to mask the contradictions (and also take the easy way out by adhering to Paul's easy-believism rather than Jesus who taught you have to actually obey God) by saying there are different messages of salvation to different people. Which makes God unjust, which is a disgusting smear on the character and nature of God anyways. But you'd rather believe God treats different groups of people unfairly than believe what Jesus actually taught. Time to wake up.
Yea,Paul was raised and studied,and was brain washed in Pharasee training.Im sure that was one of his thorns.He took the simplicity in Christ that Jesus intended,And would run your brain around the block,over bridges,up trees,then up stream.rhen zigzag in a maze,all to end up with a simple solution.ThatsvacPharasee 101.
I am scholar who knows the new testament from A to Z Paul was a giant of Christianity A man who embarked in one of the most dangerous missions of his time . Only second to trying to kill the Roman emperor. Paul mission was to bring the message of Jesus to the Pagan who by the way weren't gentle. Paul is the only apostle who wrote the definition of love the core of Christianity. Paul went to the world to teach by doing this he lost his life. I don't agreed with this professor. He is a Jew who has been all his life debunking Christianity. I think that he will be better to debunk the Torath .
These people are delusional. Paul Quotes the OT in Hebrews 1:8 to show that Jesus is God incarnate. Elsewhere, he leaves no doubt that Jesus is God. Philippians2[5] Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:[6] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:[7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made IN THE LIKENESS OF MEN.[8] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Romans1[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead [theote¯s]; so that they are without excuse: theotes; divinity (abstractly): - godhead Collosians 2[8] Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.[9]For in him dwelleth [katoikeo¯] all [pas] the fulness [ple¯ro¯ma] of the Godhead [theote¯s] bodily [so¯matiko¯s]. Collosians 2[10] And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: Colossians 1[16] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:[17] And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
This episode starts with the claim of conversion after a delusional hallucination of Christ himself. If Christ had appeared to him, he wouldn’t have ended up stumbling into such nonsensical blasphemies. However, the claim is absurd enough to question the sanity of the Dr. from the start. He then goes on with the absurd claim his position is consensus amongst scholars. I guess the British accent and well-articulated speech add to his credibility. But his position is not the consensus. This man suffers from paranoid hallucinations.
@NephilimFree even believing scholars have abandoned the idea that Paul even wrote Hebrews. Paul repeatedly seems to distinguish between God and "the man" (Paul's own words) Jesus Christ. Paul appears to have ZERO knowledge of the Trinity. The idea that Jesus is God or a part of the Godhead seems to be a fabrication of the early Catholic church hundreds of years after the death of Christ.
How can Luke-Acts be written by the same person, at one time, when in Luke the author says that Jesus ascended to heaven the day of his resurrection and in Acts the author says that Jesus stayed on earth for 40 days before ascending to heaven.
1Thessalonians (the Jews)2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Don't ever let them fool you.
All that matters is that Saul made a huge mistake and persecuted the followers of Jesus believing that he was doing the will of God. But he was the confronted by Jesus, his name was changed to Paul and he spent the rest of his life in service of Jesus. What label or title you want to put on him or what religion he was affiliated or whatever, does not matter.
Paul probably moved from a more Shammic understanding of Judaism to a more Hillielian view - possibly hasidic. The amount of hatred for pharisees within Christendom is really awful. Jesus was a pharisee; it's pretty much the only tenable view of Jesus at this point.
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below? Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary? What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9. We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the new covenant church of Mount Sion and the blood of Jesus in Hebrews 12:22-24. Paul spoke of the "two covenants" in Galatians 4:24-31 and instructed the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage". If the New Covenant is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20 and the Old Covenant is "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13, why would any Christian believe God is going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period?
Image isn't a literalist view. Jesus isn't literal G-d. Dr Crossan is right. Paul was pre-Christian in the sense that he was sectarian Jewish, Christianity is seen in polemical retrospective. Dr Crossan is our most honest historian (not theologian).
I try to be a patient host, letting my guests express themselves in full, but I do interrupt at times. Sometimes it's for the sake of clarification; other times perhaps I just get carried away. So if you have a specific time stamp to illustrate how I rudely don't let Dr. Crossan speak, please let me know how I can do better. Thanks!
In Paul's polemical attacks against the Jews, he "others " the Jews-- he refers to them in the third person i.r "they" and not "we". Paul certainly did not consider himself a jew,, at least on those occasions, and it is questionable whether someone can explicitly renounce their identity and reclaim it at a whim Paul s not a reliable narrator and there's no reason to believe that he studied under gamliel LOL He was no Pharisee, and only claims to be one because the narrative of a former Pharisee renouncing his own doctrine is obviously a lot more powerful.
Can you do your next video on gay-affirming approaches to scripture? Some of my recommended reading: 1. Jacob’s Wound: Homoerotic Narratives in the Old Testament by Theodore Jennings 2. The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives in the New Testament by Theodore Jennings 3. God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines 4. Unclobber: Rethinking Our Misuse of the Bible and Homosexuality by Colby Martin 5. Homosexuality in Islam by Scott Kugle 6. Sex and the Single Savior by Dale Martin
@@mnamhieone could make an argument that Leviticus is specifically talking about heterosexual men [not] doing gay things; AKA bisexuality. Although most people have interpreted it as homosexuality.
@ Lev. 20:13 makes it crystal clear: “And a man who lies with another man as one would with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon themselves.” Supported in the NT, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor those habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” It really can’t be any more clear than this. To interpret these passages any differently than what is clearly instructed is self-deception.
@mnamhie "as one lies with a woman". It was easy enough to say "don't have sex with animals", why couldn't it say, "men should never have sex with men"? And why do christians hate lesbians? Paul invents a word in Greek to describe the situation, and it's possible he is referring to married couples who took young male prostitutes into their home. What ime talking about in Leviticus is this, and just think for a moment; if there is a man who decided he was gay before the age of accountability, and he doesn't sleep with women, is he breaking Moses' command in Leviticus? He isn't laying with a man the same way he would lay with a woman, since he doesn't lay with women.
I'm just going to refute my own point, since i am versed in the topic. Paul also writes in Romans 1, verses 25-32 that women after women and men after men is against God's will ("vile affections"). While the verse in 1 Corinthians definitely is Paul's understanding of Leviticus (both 18;22 and 20;13) which is why it seems to have more to do with boy sex slaves in the house of a married man (making him bi) and it condemns both sides of this relationship, the passive and the aggressive (not seen in all translations, most of the time simply translated to English as "homosexuals") Romans 1 makes a better case for Paul's disdain of homosexuality, which includes lesbians: which was never an issue that was addressed in the Torah, as far as i know. While it may seem like a separate subject, Adultery seems to be defined differently in the OT, as well. Men can have multiple wives and concubines without an issue, so it seems that OT adultery is when a woman goes outside of her marriage and when a man goes into another man's marriage. Until the quote from Jesus in Matthew 19;8-9 and Mark 10;11 (which can be argued on a translation basis), there was never a label of "adultery" placed on a married man having sex with an unmarried woman (this might still be called "fornication", a lesser sin, but still a sin).
You are very bright but I think you’re wasting your time. The Bible’s validity has been debated for the past 2000 years. You’ll find no end of scholars with edgy views. Viewing the Bible through a hyper critical lens like this fast tracks you into atheism because you literally can’t take anything in the Bible at face value. Recency bias is real today in terms of ranking biblical scholarship.
@@phil3924 So questioning the Bible results in atheism? That is simply not true. Many very early Christians/patristics did not take the text as completely literal. And your comment about recency bias is also not true. The only way to progress is to discuss new ideas or ways of looking at data, new and old. And lastly, not pursuing truth honestly and openly is a waste of time.
@@jericosha2842 never said questioning leads to atheism, in excess it leads down that path. Many scholars view the Bible as some cultural artifact and not divinely inspired. . If a scholar doesn’t view it as inspired, I don’t know why he would waste his time with them. Recency bias is real. If someone asks for a book on a certain topic, chances are people will recommend the newest one. That assumption might lead you to fringe ideas. Also, academia isn’t always about the pursuit of truth. There are countless dissertations that have been shot down for biased reasons.
@@phil3924 You are in a fundamentalist bubble. I was most of my life too. I'm not going to argue about this, but being Christian does not mean to believe in the Bible as inspired. That might be your rigid brand of Christianity.
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](/img/n.gif)
Dude you are such a gifted speaker and interlocuter for these scholarly interviews. I hope you keep doing them! Looking forward to watching all of this.
Thank you!
I second that. I've never watched your channel but I've watched about 20 interviews with Dom. Really nice work
Paul Within Judaism, absolutely fascinating concept.
Paul is despised today in modern Judaism and among some modern “Christians”.
Rabbinic Judaism dismisses the plurality of Jewish practice and belief in 1st century CE. Protestants distrust the Romanitas of the Old Church.
@@williambranch4283 Ho ho Ho Chi Minh
Absolutely, it is the only way to understand the historical person of Paul. If we fail to understand Second Temple Judaism, we fail to understand Jesus and subsequently Paul.
You're an excellent interviewer and this is a great guest.
New subscriber!
Please do more interviews! You are much appreciated!
2:06:04 I love Dr. Dominic's almost parable of humans being the iceberg, not the Titanic, and the implication that the Divine Intervention may actually end up being melting the hardness of our icy hearts to add to the water in the ocean and allow for a peaceful voyage of God's world.
Nahoa Life is inspiring. Thank you. Love your music by the way.
This is amazing! I've been wishing for an "eli15" presentation from Dr Crossan, and here it is! I am much older than the host, but, like him, I am thoughtful and passionate about learning, and I haven't spent decades in academic research on these topics. Thanks to Dr Crossan for being so patient and clear. Thanks to Nahoa Life for providing this - I hope your future is full of deep learning.
What Crossan says...his spin is false. St Paul changed from the Pharisee Saul of Tarsus. He preached Jesus as the Christ, did not keep Jewish ritual, worship or legal precepts. He upbraded Peter for his keeping of Jewish customs but then changing his tune with gentile Christians. Pauls nessage was I am a Jew but now a Christian and I invite Jews to the same and gentiles too without being Jewish in ritual but something news and different... a Christian. Paul also used his Roman citizenship and died the death of a Roman convicted of being a Christian...nlt a Jew with Peter following him to Rome and dying a martyrs death.
@johnfisher247 I think your argument is a religious one, and that's fine. It would be suitable if you were arguing with someone from the church down the street who also reads scripture and came up with a different conclusion from yours.
Dr. Crossan is speaking from an academic analysis of texts and history. There's nothing inherently "better" about that, but it's a different style of thought. Calling his take "false," based on a particular faith tradition or personal reading of the Bible won't have much impact, because he isn't talking about those things. Academics are fine with disagreement, and with discussing the research evidence of different points of view, but they aren't particularly interested in proving things true or false.
Brilliant interview!
🔥 convo!!
"For Paul this is what God looks like in sandals" 😅😅😅
This kid is super smart. Wow.
I love your interviews. I am aetheist and your protestant, but I don't detect a bias in your line of questioning. Just genuine curiosity and willingness to try and understand, which is exactly where I am coming from.
This man’s assumptions or beliefs as he calls them are brilliant for a book to sell.
There is no way that Luke invented those speeches with Paul as a source in the 60s. Let's be honest, Luke wrote this while Paul was in chains in Caesarea. Luke was written in the 60s while Paul was still alive; lots of reasons for this and scholarship has slowly moved to understand Luke as having access to eye witness testimony. You can't have that testimony too late; everyone would be dead! Christians good, Jews bad? That is not what is going on at all. Luke himself was a Jew, and Theophilus was most likely a Jew who commissioned this to be written. We know Luke is a Jew because Luke was not apart of the accusation against Paul for bringing Trophimus into the Temple.
Luke, along with Paul, are looking to prove themselves as not being Sicarii; this is the very reason Paul is in chains! Theophilus pays Luke to write and compile; but it's also a massive defense of Paul! Jesus' movement is not sicarii; it is a movement of peace and openness to Gentiles - and that is why Luke controls his narrative to show how the Jesus movement was open to Gentiles - AKA Cornelius! Luke is absolutely writing an apologetic; but he is not writing a Roman Christianity! The parting of the ways explains why the original Second Temple Jewish understanding of our faith was lost to gentile influence and dominance. Luke is writing in the genre of ancient history, just like Josephus, but he does craft the narrative just like Josephus does with the speeches as Massada. But Luke had access to the primary sources; Josephuses clearly uses those characters as mouth pieces as an apologetic for the Jews to the Romans as a PR stunt.
There is no way that Luke used Mark. There are SO many problems with this view. In triplet renditions, (agreement with Matthean, Markan, and Lucan accounts) Luke's version is nearly always better. For example, it gets very specific Second Temple Jewish details, wording, syntax, and Hebraisms over Mark. Mark lacks contemporary historical detail. Why would a later Gospels have better details? This doesn't make sense. Scholars have recognized Luke’s version and account of the events of Jesus’ last hours derived from a more primitive, non-Markan source.
Luke does not know of a nighttime interrogation, which seemingly derived from Mark’s pen due to a desire to “fill the empty space” in the narrative. Moreover, Luke has no knowledge of Jesus before the Jewish Sanhedrin, which did not exist during the days of Jesus. Herod the Great, when he became king, apparently disbanded the body of the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem due to their opposition to him, particularly at a previous trial of his. It was reestablished either by Agrippa I (AD 41-44) or, more likely, after the death of Agrippa I when Rome brought all of Agrippa’s kingdom under the oversight of the procurators. Luke-Acts preserves this historical nuance. In the narratives prior to the time of Agrippa I, the term “Sanhedrin” refers to the “council chamber,” the Chamber of Hewn Stone (לשכת הגזית; m. Pe’ah 2:6; m. Sanhedrin 11:2; m. Middot 5:4; y. Sanhedrin 19c; b. Yoma 25a), where the Jewish council met (in and around the Temple Mount).[4] After the death of Agrippa I, Luke used the term “Sanhedrin” to refer to the council itself. The appearance in Mark and Matthew of the full Sanhedrin is anachronistic, reflecting the later situation. John also does not know of Jesus standing before a session of the Jewish Sanhedrin.
"You will see the son of man, seated at the right hand of the power, riding on the clouds of heaven."
And Steven
"I see the son of man seated at the right hand of the power, coming on the clouds of heaven."
Were later additions? Or no
@ I don’t understand the question
Really great interview again, appreciate your approach to these dialogues! Have you ever been to SBL conference? It's in your part of the country next month in San Diego and lots of these scholars are there and approachable.
You know what, I have not been yet, but I learned about it last year and wanted to go. Thanks for reminding me!
For an alternative view, one source would be N.T. Wright's "Paul, a Biography" .
Right, I've been meaning to read that and reach out to Dr. Wright.
@@nahoalife954 what are your thoughts on Dr. Brad H. Young and James R Edwards who propose that Luke’s gospel contains the most “Hebrewisms” in terms of its style/composition compared to the other synoptic gospels? James even proposes that he may have used the “Hebrew Gospel” mentioned by many of the church fathers for centuries, as a source.
Absolutely beautiful. Those were some digging questions, but I agreed with his answers. A solid interview from both of you 💯
(My agreement is the standard of quality, obviously!)
The idea of Paul remaining Jewish is an idea that was at the very center of the thinking of the late Jacob Taubes. His political theology of Paul is very thought provoking and it highlights the nuances of Paul as an intermediary between Jews and non-Jews in the emerging Christian world of that period.
The only issue is in practice terms he was beaten and persecuted by Jews because like Stephen and St James he said and held Jesus is God. In terms of Jewish ritual law Paul repudiated circumcision, keeping of Saturday which is the Jewish Sabbath replaced by the Dominica or Lord's Day and not keeping kosher food rules and much else required by Judaism. Therefore he was not an observant Jews but something else...a Jewish non gentile Christian.
@ Yes, I agree with your analysis here. The tension between the purportedly Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians is very evident in the New Testament particularly over the issue of circumcision. Paul occupies an unusual middle ground in many ways almost acting as a kind of transitory individual bridging the two worlds together.
@@johnfisher247 You are totally wrong. You do not understand, what the real Paul says. Paul was No Christian, is a very good and elobarte book by Pamela Eisenbaum. She gives a very clear view, and underlines what Crossan is saying, but from a Jewish perspective.
Religion is based on faith not facts. If Paul was really a serial killer, a worshiper of Thor, or whatever it doesn't matter because the believers won't believe anything that contradicts what they want to believe.
That's a very common dichotomy you assume: faith vs facts. There's a whole host of literature to explore about the nature of belief, trust, evidence, etc. I would caution against generalizing "the believers" as being intractably pious. It's unreasonable to assert that all theists are unreceptive; it's also unreasonable to assert that all atheists or agnostics are unreceptive. There are better ways to make dialectical progress. For example, you could immerse yourself in academic work and engage with the content in a critical, charitable way.
Paul was a "Christ-following" Pharisee? Then why do Paul's teachings from the epistles completely contradict what Jesus is recorded as having taught about salvation in the Gospels?
Colossians 1:15-20: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible… For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.” This emphasizes that Jesus embodies the fullness of God2
@ALBIZURES being dwelt with the fullness of the Godhead is not the same as _being_ the Godhead, or part of the Godhead. Plus the notion that Paul actually even wrote Colossians is very dubious.
Because Jesus came for the lost sheep of the house of Judah, no for the gentiles. After the religious leaders of Israel rejected Jesus and later on the Holly Ghost when they killed Steven in acts 7, Jesus appears to Paul and shows him the Revelation of the body of Christ, in which there is no more Jew or Gentile, but Christ in All. That's why it is a different message, because they where preaching to two different group of people before and after the resurrection of Christ. It is not a contradiction, only change of dispensation of Grace.
@@ByGraceThroughFaith777 I've refuted these dispensational lies so many times I'm not going to waste my time again. It's the same thing over and over so I'm just going to make it plain: Paul was a liar who spread a different message of salvation than Jesus. Scholars don't even think "Paul" wrote most of the "Pauline" epistles, but rather they are forgeries written during the time of the early church. Dispensationalists just try to mask the contradictions (and also take the easy way out by adhering to Paul's easy-believism rather than Jesus who taught you have to actually obey God) by saying there are different messages of salvation to different people. Which makes God unjust, which is a disgusting smear on the character and nature of God anyways. But you'd rather believe God treats different groups of people unfairly than believe what Jesus actually taught. Time to wake up.
Yea,Paul was raised and studied,and was brain washed in Pharasee training.Im sure that was one of his thorns.He took the simplicity in Christ that Jesus intended,And would run your brain around the block,over bridges,up trees,then up stream.rhen zigzag in a maze,all to end up with a simple solution.ThatsvacPharasee 101.
Rational Religion channel has similar takes on Paul. They are very sure Paul was a Pharisee double agent.
I am scholar who knows the new testament from A to Z Paul was a giant of Christianity
A man who embarked in one of the most dangerous missions of his time . Only second to trying to kill the Roman emperor. Paul mission was to bring the message of Jesus to the Pagan who by the way weren't gentle. Paul is the only apostle who wrote the definition of love the core of Christianity. Paul went to the world to teach by doing this he lost his life. I don't agreed with this professor. He is a Jew who has been all his life debunking Christianity. I think that he will be better to debunk the Torath .
Many confuse who God is and always was which was Christ himself who declares who he is in John 8v58.
Before Abraham was even born, I AM.
Paul was a charlatan. There are no first-hand accounts of jesus. He was a myth!
These people are delusional. Paul Quotes the OT in Hebrews 1:8 to show that Jesus is God incarnate. Elsewhere, he leaves no doubt that Jesus is God.
Philippians2[5] Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:[6] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:[7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made IN THE LIKENESS OF MEN.[8] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Romans1[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead [theote¯s]; so that they are without excuse: theotes; divinity (abstractly): - godhead
Collosians 2[8] Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.[9]For in him dwelleth [katoikeo¯] all [pas] the fulness [ple¯ro¯ma] of the Godhead [theote¯s] bodily [so¯matiko¯s].
Collosians 2[10] And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
Colossians 1[16] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:[17] And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
This episode starts with the claim of conversion after a delusional hallucination of Christ himself. If Christ had appeared to him, he wouldn’t have ended up stumbling into such nonsensical blasphemies. However, the claim is absurd enough to question the sanity of the Dr. from the start. He then goes on with the absurd claim his position is consensus amongst scholars. I guess the British accent and well-articulated speech add to his credibility. But his position is not the consensus. This man suffers from paranoid hallucinations.
@NephilimFree even believing scholars have abandoned the idea that Paul even wrote Hebrews. Paul repeatedly seems to distinguish between God and "the man" (Paul's own words) Jesus Christ. Paul appears to have ZERO knowledge of the Trinity. The idea that Jesus is God or a part of the Godhead seems to be a fabrication of the early Catholic church hundreds of years after the death of Christ.
@@MicahDamgerIt’s an Irish accent, but why bring it up? Do you have some sort of inferiority complex about the way you speak?
How can Luke-Acts be written by the same person, at one time, when in Luke the author says that Jesus ascended to heaven the day of his resurrection and in Acts the author says that Jesus stayed on earth for 40 days before ascending to heaven.
1Thessalonians (the Jews)2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
Don't ever let them fool you.
You posted a scripture with no interpretation. What do you think are the implications of 1 Thessalonians 2:15 in this context?
It says the Jews killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets...they have persecuted us and they don't please God, they are against all men.
Nice, you get your anti-Semitism from your bible
Nazarene Judaism is the true faith in YEHOSHUA/JESUS
All that matters is that Saul made a huge mistake and persecuted the followers of Jesus believing that he was doing the will of God. But he was the confronted by Jesus, his name was changed to Paul and he spent the rest of his life in service of Jesus. What label or title you want to put on him or what religion he was affiliated or whatever, does not matter.
Paul probably moved from a more Shammic understanding of Judaism to a more Hillielian view - possibly hasidic. The amount of hatred for pharisees within Christendom is really awful. Jesus was a pharisee; it's pretty much the only tenable view of Jesus at this point.
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below?
Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary.
God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9.
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the new covenant church of Mount Sion and the blood of Jesus in Hebrews 12:22-24. Paul spoke of the "two covenants" in Galatians 4:24-31 and instructed the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage".
If the New Covenant is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20 and the Old Covenant is "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13, why would any Christian believe God is going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period?
Image isn't a literalist view. Jesus isn't literal G-d. Dr Crossan is right. Paul was pre-Christian in the sense that he was sectarian Jewish, Christianity is seen in polemical retrospective. Dr Crossan is our most honest historian (not theologian).
You need to allow your guest to speak.
I try to be a patient host, letting my guests express themselves in full, but I do interrupt at times. Sometimes it's for the sake of clarification; other times perhaps I just get carried away. So if you have a specific time stamp to illustrate how I rudely don't let Dr. Crossan speak, please let me know how I can do better. Thanks!
@@nahoalife954You did just fine. You let this guy speak much longer than I would have.
Agricolus?
In Paul's polemical attacks against the Jews, he "others " the Jews-- he refers to them in the third person i.r "they" and not "we".
Paul certainly did not consider himself a jew,, at least on those occasions, and it is questionable whether someone can explicitly renounce their identity and reclaim it at a whim
Paul s not a reliable narrator and there's no reason to believe that he studied under gamliel LOL
He was no Pharisee, and only claims to be one because the narrative of a former Pharisee renouncing his own doctrine is obviously a lot more powerful.
I'm not going to waste my time watching this video because the intro is clearly in denial of biblical truth.
That’s called being closed minded . That’s what you Trinitarian do best
I don’t find his(scholar he interviewed) responses any more than his own dogma
Lots of presuppositions which I would be required to accept in order to continue forward with his premise.
Can you do your next video on gay-affirming approaches to scripture? Some of my recommended reading:
1. Jacob’s Wound: Homoerotic Narratives in the Old Testament by Theodore Jennings
2. The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives in the New Testament by Theodore Jennings
3. God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines
4. Unclobber: Rethinking Our Misuse of the Bible and Homosexuality by Colby Martin
5. Homosexuality in Islam by Scott Kugle
6. Sex and the Single Savior by Dale Martin
The Bible, both old and new testaments, makes it perfectly clear that homosexuality is abhorrent to God and a sin needing repentance.
@@mnamhieone could make an argument that Leviticus is specifically talking about heterosexual men [not] doing gay things; AKA bisexuality.
Although most people have interpreted it as homosexuality.
@ Lev. 20:13 makes it crystal clear: “And a man who lies with another man as one would with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon themselves.” Supported in the NT, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor those habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” It really can’t be any more clear than this. To interpret these passages any differently than what is clearly instructed is self-deception.
@mnamhie "as one lies with a woman". It was easy enough to say "don't have sex with animals", why couldn't it say, "men should never have sex with men"? And why do christians hate lesbians? Paul invents a word in Greek to describe the situation, and it's possible he is referring to married couples who took young male prostitutes into their home.
What ime talking about in Leviticus is this, and just think for a moment; if there is a man who decided he was gay before the age of accountability, and he doesn't sleep with women, is he breaking Moses' command in Leviticus? He isn't laying with a man the same way he would lay with a woman, since he doesn't lay with women.
I'm just going to refute my own point, since i am versed in the topic. Paul also writes in Romans 1, verses 25-32 that women after women and men after men is against God's will ("vile affections"). While the verse in 1 Corinthians definitely is Paul's understanding of Leviticus (both 18;22 and 20;13) which is why it seems to have more to do with boy sex slaves in the house of a married man (making him bi) and it condemns both sides of this relationship, the passive and the aggressive (not seen in all translations, most of the time simply translated to English as "homosexuals") Romans 1 makes a better case for Paul's disdain of homosexuality, which includes lesbians: which was never an issue that was addressed in the Torah, as far as i know.
While it may seem like a separate subject, Adultery seems to be defined differently in the OT, as well. Men can have multiple wives and concubines without an issue, so it seems that OT adultery is when a woman goes outside of her marriage and when a man goes into another man's marriage. Until the quote from Jesus in Matthew 19;8-9 and Mark 10;11 (which can be argued on a translation basis), there was never a label of "adultery" placed on a married man having sex with an unmarried woman (this might still be called "fornication", a lesser sin, but still a sin).
Paul joined the Catholic Church ❤
Now I understand why the Church used to BURN HERETICS.
This guy is ridiculous! Always has been! Thinks the resurrection narrative of apocryphal of Gospel of Peter predates Mark 😅
Maybe too much hand waving?
You are very bright but I think you’re wasting your time. The Bible’s validity has been debated for the past 2000 years. You’ll find no end of scholars with edgy views. Viewing the Bible through a hyper critical lens like this fast tracks you into atheism because you literally can’t take anything in the Bible at face value. Recency bias is real today in terms of ranking biblical scholarship.
The Bible lives in the heart not in the head ;-)
Or....
You can decide man wrote the Bible and not God.
God's laws are written in nature.
@@phil3924 So questioning the Bible results in atheism? That is simply not true. Many very early Christians/patristics did not take the text as completely literal. And your comment about recency bias is also not true. The only way to progress is to discuss new ideas or ways of looking at data, new and old. And lastly, not pursuing truth honestly and openly is a waste of time.
@@jericosha2842 never said questioning leads to atheism, in excess it leads down that path. Many scholars view the Bible as some cultural artifact and not divinely inspired. . If a scholar doesn’t view it as inspired, I don’t know why he would waste his time with them. Recency bias is real. If someone asks for a book on a certain topic, chances are people will recommend the newest one. That assumption might lead you to fringe ideas. Also, academia isn’t always about the pursuit of truth. There are countless dissertations that have been shot down for biased reasons.
@@phil3924 You are in a fundamentalist bubble. I was most of my life too. I'm not going to argue about this, but being Christian does not mean to believe in the Bible as inspired. That might be your rigid brand of Christianity.