I love how you are able to hold your own throughout the conversation Nahoa, you clearly did you due diligence to look into Dr John's theories as well as other views surrounding the topic you discussed today. If ever there was a physical example of Jesus debating in the temple in his early life you come are it. Your openess to all perspectives and goal of looking for the truth is inspiring xxx❤
@nahoalife954 whether you feel you can accept it or not, doesn't really change the fact it you held your own. Dr. John wouldn't have complimented your interview skills if he wasn't impressed with you xxx❤️
@trinitymatrix9719 admiration and support. I encourage everyone to value critical thought and to chase truth. Nahoa and I may have totally different opinions on what that truth is but I listen to him because I realise that his highly perceptive and critical mind might have noticed a relevant fact I had missed and I would hate to be believing an obvious lie like flat earthers or creationists do I hope that answers your question but if you need any further clarification I am more than happy to answer any of your questions xxx❤️
I've only recently discovered your videos, partly because you have interviewed Crossan, who I have highly regarded for many years. Excellent interview with some great questions. I shall keep watch for further videos. Hey, I'm a fan!! 👍🏼😁
I agree with Dr. Crossan that Nahoa was a fantastic interviewer. Dr. Crossan presented a different way to interpret what has been written about Jesus. Dr. Crossan's point that those with a literal belief and others with a metaphorical view might still agree on the implications of events was interesting and important. Similarly, he demonstrated how a metaphorical interpretation could be as real as a literal one (e.g., communion). Thank you.
He is telling my experience. Roman Catholics in Europe have no urge to literalism. That is due to the more philosophical attitude of Catholic theology. The education on those seminaries was excellent and produced many good scholars, because of this classical approach: Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger, Yves Congar, Edward Schillebeeckx, Piet Schoonenberg, Teillard Dejardin. Just summarizing some of the great ones from the 20th century.
I'm a little disappointed in Crossan here. He sort of weasels out at 1:00-1:03 minute section about his debate with N T Wright. Alas for my hero, John Dominic! Alas! I guess he doesn't want to join the more forthright father Thomas Brodie in exile! Oh well. God bless your fine body of work Dr. Crossan! Thanks for this interview, Nahoa. You really got the issue out there. How does a 15-year-old get so smart!
Sorry, there is a huge difference between taking this literally and taking it metaphorically. The difference is that I don't have to speak like a defensive, apologist loon such as William Lane Craig, Normon Geisler,, or Gregg Laurie to accept the metaphorical understanding.
I keep returning the this conversation, having listened to quite a number of conversations with John Dominic. I have watched and read Jacob Bronowski’s The Ascent of Man. John Dominic may not know about Jacob. I think the two would enjoy getting to know each other. Jacob would probably describe himself as a member of the Reformed Jewish Community. Secular. We humans do not escape our primate origins easily. We are, in fact, animals. Evolution has shaped all animals. We are primal. A reading of On the Origin of Species, quickly informs the reader that most species do not survive. We, humans, are subject to these same odds. The best that we can do is to do our best.
About the metaphor and the reality. The Catholic would not disagree that acting on metaphor can change you but they believe that is grace working on human your nature not your own doing.
The Catholics celebrate the ascension separately. Why? What is the significance of Paul believing in universal resurrection? The universal resurrection happening at the very end but there are examples of resurrections or a dead body coming back to life. At least 3 incidents of it in the OT and also Lazarus in NT
I think of the resurrected body of Jesus as the church. Jesus continues to live in the people who continue to follow and spread his teachings. The Balad of Joe Hill is an analogy. "Says I, but Joe, you're ten years dead. I never died, said he. Where working men defend their rights, that's where you'll find Joe Hill."
Sounds like Crossan thought Goodacre was making a theological point rather than a historical one. I agree the mention of Simon of Cyrene is intriguing and has to be taken seriously.
Yeah it's a very interesting detail. At the very least, Dr. Goodacre is right in pointing out that if we remove the details very plausibly derived from the OT, we are left with more than "just the bare fact of the crucifixion." But honestly, I don't think I did justice to him in my representation and question.
I spent some years, typically during August, fighting wildland fires. In this capacity, I had frequent exposure to our tribal brothers and sisters. As Dominic says, Christianity was not kind to the Druids and Rome was not kind to the Celts. Likewise Christianity was not kind to those humans who were already living in the Americas. Each had their own gods, religions. We never talked religion on fire assignments. Too much work to be done. But it has put our tribal brothers and sisters on my radar. I think of the friends I made frequently.
I think Jesus' resurrection would have most likely been understood as the same process as Enoch, Moses (taken by God after his death,) and Elijah. A "taking up," both in body and spirit - not the beginning of the Resurrection, and not quite a Helenistic Ascension. But similar. I don't think this explains the post-crucifixion sightings and meetings with Jesus - why in the world did they have trouble recognizing him? - but I don't think it's inconsistent with them. I think Jesus being caught up in the clouds is... kind of on-the-nose. But the rest have a sense of genuineness to them. Thomas is, well, perhaps too theologically convenient. But Mary Magdelene and Peter bear seemingly genuine surprise and confusion. They raise questions they don't conveniently answer. All this leads me to believe they are at least loosely based on real accounts. These are not all my thoughts. I'm still thinking.
You should look into Christic Visions. Jesus appears to millions of people every year to people of all faiths and backgrounds, even people who have never read a Bible or know who he is. For example, it's estimated 30-50% of new Christian converts in heavily Muslim countries where it is a crime to be a Christian converted by meeting the "man in white." It is starting to gather serious scientific study lately, and Dale Allison thinks it's a fascinating and important question of whether what they see is really there, which he thinks it is. Check out "Visions of Jesus" by Philip Wiebe. It's serious and scholarly.
Using unsubstantiated claims or beliefs to support the unsubstantiated claims from the Bible in an attempt to prove anything about the Bible is just plain S T O O P I D ! ! !
I question this guys hermaneutics. When he said "For God so loved the world" (ignoring the rest of John 3:16) as if it was meaning the Earth, it shows he pulls things out of context. He reads what he wants into the text.
I see dr. John is struggling to understand the actual message of Jesus. It is very sad that no scholar has been able to interpret Jesus whithin the non dualistic model. The non dual Jesus - Christ. Xristos. The principle of absolute inclusivity.
1. Yeshua (Gk. Jesus) is presented as a potential Hebrew messianic personality, however does not fulfil the messianic descriptors situated in prophecy. Yeshua does not embody the personal qualifications of the Mashiach (Messiah). Tanakhic Hebrew verses said to ‘refer’ to Yeshua are mistranslated references. Belief and adherence to Tanach is based on Klal Yisrael’s (Israel’s national) and ‘particular’ revelation. 78 Cit. loc.:S. Magid, 2017. Jew, Christian, and the Judeo-Christian: Thinking with Cynthia Baker’s Jew, p.1. 79 The concept of Mashiach (Messiah) as a primary conceptualisation is defined consistently within the Tanakh. Therefore, the word ‘Messiah’ can be considered primarily as an English rendering of the Hebrew word ‘Mashiach’, meaning “anointed”. Accordingly, the scriptures prescribe that a candidate is initiated into Divine service by being anointed with oil (Exodus 29.7, 1-Kings 1.39, 2- Kings 9.3). Yeshua (Jesus) clearly did not fulfil these aspects of messianic prophecy. What is the Mashiach to accomplish? A central theme of biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age characterised by universal peace and a global recognition of the particular idea of the Divine nature (Isaiah 2.1-4, 32.15-18, 60.15-18; Zephaniah 3.9; Hosea 2.20-22; Amos 9.13-15; Micah 4.1-4; Zechariah 8.23, 14.9; Jeremiah 31.33-34). Specifically, the Tanach states that the Mashiach will: 1. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37.26-28). 2. Gather all Jews back to the ‘Land of Israel’ (Isaiah 43.5-6). 3. Usher in an era of world peace, and end of all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2.4). 4. Spread universal knowledge of the Divine which will unite humanity as one. As it says: “God will be King over all the world-on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One” (Zechariah 14.9). According to the Hebrew tradition, if a messianic candidate fails even one of these conditions ‘he’ cannot be considered to be Mashiach and therefore still awaited, even though it is acknowledged that potential candidates are born in every generation. All past notable messianic claimants, including Yeshua (Jesus of Nazareth), Bar Kochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected for the aforementioned reasons. The Christian tradition counters that Jesus will fulfil these in a ‘Second Coming’. However, according to the Jewish sources it is clear that the Mashiach will fulfil these prophecies outright; there is no ‘second coming’ featured anywhere in the Tanach. On the basis of the traditional prerequisites Yeshua does not embody any of the personal qualifications of Mashiach 80 or even a prophet and the Mashiach is projected as the greatest prophet in all history, second only to Moses (Targum-Isaiah 11.2; Maimonides -Teshuva 9:2). Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of Klal Ysrael (world Jewry), a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE. During the time of Ezra, for example, when the majority of Jews remained in Babylon, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets-Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Yeshu appeared 350 years after prophecy ended, and therefore cannot be categorised as a prophet. Many of the prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23.5-6, 30.7-10, 33.14-16; Ezekiel 34.11-31, 37.21-28; Hosea 3.4-5). Therefore, it is considered that the Mashiach must be descended from King David through the male line (Genesis 49.10, Isaiah 11.1, Jeremiah 23.5, 33.17; Ezekiel 34.23-24). According to the Christian claim, Yeshua was the product of ‘virgin birth’, and had no physical father, he could not possibly fulfil the messianic requirements of being descended on his father's side from King David. According to Jewish sources, the Mashiach will be born of human parents and possess normative physical attributes. Therefore, it has always been considered an anathema for the faithful to consider the Mashiach divine or a demi-god, or even possess supernatural qualities for that matter. Further, Mashiach maintains Torah observance and will lead the nation to full Torah observance. The Torah states that the mitzvot (Jewish Biblical requirements) will remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13.1-4). Throughout the Christian “New Testament” Yeshua paradoxically embraces and contradicts (Romans 10.4) the Torah and states that strict adherence to the commandments are no longer applicable. For example, Mathew 5.17 states: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.” Then in John 9.14 it is recorded that Yeshu makes a paste in violation of Shabbat, causing the Pharisees to say (verse 16), “He does not observe Shabbat!” Therefore, the character of Yeshua cannot possibly embody the personal qualifications of Mashiach as according to the principal laid down in the Tanach. 81 It would be reasonable to assume that the Tanach verses can be better understood in their original text. When this is done there are many discrepancies in translation when compared to Christian references. For example, a Christian reference to ‘Virgin Birth’ in Isaiah 7.14. The woman in Isaiah is described in Hebrew as an “alma” giving birth. The word “alma” refers to a young woman of childbearing age who may be unmarried or married or even possibly an ‘almana’ (widow), however Christian theologians have translated ‘alma’ as a “virgin” utilising the Greek word parthenos. Even though a ‘virgin’ is clearly a “bitula” in Hebrew. This revision of signification accords with the Gospel narrative of Mary (Miriam’s status) as a married woman and Yeshua’s birth narrative, which is comparative with common Greco-Roman narratives of mortals impregnated by gods or humans given or assuming a divine state. Ascribed Christian notions surrounding the ‘suffering servant’ in Isaiah, chapter 53, which is said to reference Yeshua, however clearly follows the themes of chapter 52 describing a ‘particular’ exile and redemption of the people of Israel. These prophecies are written in a singular form as in the term Klal Yisrael, which regards the nation as one unit or category (Klal), a people, a nation. In and throughout Tanakhic scripture, Israel is repeatedly called in the singular the “Servant of God” (Isaiah 43:8), in fact, Isaiah states no less than eleven times in the chapters prior to chapter 53 that the “Servant of God” is Israel. When read correctly, Isaiah 53 ironically refers to the people of Israel as being “bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter” at the hands of the nations of the world. Such descriptors are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Tehillim [Psalm] 44). The verse Isaiah 53 concludes with the Jewish people as redeemed, with the other nations recognising and accepting responsibility for the inordinate suffering of the Jewish people. Judaism is also similar to other indigenous belief systems with regard to an attachment to a particular land, but uniquely amongst other major religions, does not rely on the miraculous individuals as its basis for religion. The Tanach states that God sometimes grants a power of 82 “miracles” to charlatans, in order to test a fealty to Torah (Deut. 13.4), Judaism, rather, bases belief on national revelation-that is, God speaking to the entire nation (Maimonides states as such in Foundations of Torah, ch. 8). The basis for Hebrew belief is offered in a corporate ‘Revelation’ at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others’ as it says, “Face to face, (panim el panim) the Divine spoke with you”. It is written in the Torah as a statement of anamnesis: “God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us-who are all here alive today.” (Deut. 5:3) reiterated in the Pesach (Passover) Haggada (telling- narrative). Much of these details are not acknowledged by Christian commentators and represent longstanding dissent. The lack of discussion of the aforementioned and selective choice of Kabbalistic themes by Christian commentators betrays a sense of the long-standing and historical epistemological threat that Judaism represents to the cogency Christian theology, a phenomenon which is the crux of historical anti-Semitism and the source of the ‘Jewish Question’. For the European gentile theologians the fact that the ‘Jew’ and Judaism persists, ultimately and reflexively represents a threat to Christian identity and Christian ‘order’ and constitutes a long-standing existential anxiety.
1. Yeshua (Gk. Jesus) is presented as a potential Hebrew messianic personality, however does not fulfil the messianic descriptors situated in prophecy. Yeshua does not embody the personal qualifications of the Mashiach (Messiah). Tanakhic Hebrew verses said to ‘refer’ to Yeshua are mistranslated references. Belief and adherence to Tanach is based on Klal Yisrael’s (Israel’s national) and ‘particular’ revelation. 78 Cit. loc.:S. Magid, 2017. Jew, Christian, and the Judeo-Christian: Thinking with Cynthia Baker’s Jew, p.1. 79 The concept of Mashiach (Messiah) as a primary conceptualisation is defined consistently within the Tanakh. Therefore, the word ‘Messiah’ can be considered primarily as an English rendering of the Hebrew word ‘Mashiach’, meaning “anointed”. Accordingly, the scriptures prescribe that a candidate is initiated into Divine service by being anointed with oil (Exodus 29.7, 1-Kings 1.39, 2- Kings 9.3). Yeshua (Jesus) clearly did not fulfil these aspects of messianic prophecy. What is the Mashiach to accomplish? A central theme of biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age characterised by universal peace and a global recognition of the particular idea of the Divine nature (Isaiah 2.1-4, 32.15-18, 60.15-18; Zephaniah 3.9; Hosea 2.20-22; Amos 9.13-15; Micah 4.1-4; Zechariah 8.23, 14.9; Jeremiah 31.33-34). Specifically, the Tanach states that the Mashiach will: 1. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37.26-28). 2. Gather all Jews back to the ‘Land of Israel’ (Isaiah 43.5-6). 3. Usher in an era of world peace, and end of all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2.4). 4. Spread universal knowledge of the Divine which will unite humanity as one. As it says: “God will be King over all the world-on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One” (Zechariah 14.9). According to the Hebrew tradition, if a messianic candidate fails even one of these conditions ‘he’ cannot be considered to be Mashiach and therefore still awaited, even though it is acknowledged that potential candidates are born in every generation. All past notable messianic claimants, including Yeshua (Jesus of Nazareth), Bar Kochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected for the aforementioned reasons. The Christian tradition counters that Jesus will fulfil these in a ‘Second Coming’. However, according to the Jewish sources it is clear that the Mashiach will fulfil these prophecies outright; there is no ‘second coming’ featured anywhere in the Tanach. On the basis of the traditional prerequisites Yeshua does not embody any of the personal qualifications of Mashiach 80 or even a prophet and the Mashiach is projected as the greatest prophet in all history, second only to Moses (Targum-Isaiah 11.2; Maimonides -Teshuva 9:2). Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of Klal Ysrael (world Jewry), a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE. During the time of Ezra, for example, when the majority of Jews remained in Babylon, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets-Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Yeshu appeared 350 years after prophecy ended, and therefore cannot be categorised as a prophet. Many of the prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23.5-6, 30.7-10, 33.14-16; Ezekiel 34.11-31, 37.21-28; Hosea 3.4-5). Therefore, it is considered that the Mashiach must be descended from King David through the male line (Genesis 49.10, Isaiah 11.1, Jeremiah 23.5, 33.17; Ezekiel 34.23-24). According to the Christian claim, Yeshua was the product of ‘virgin birth’, and had no physical father, he could not possibly fulfil the messianic requirements of being descended on his father's side from King David. According to Jewish sources, the Mashiach will be born of human parents and possess normative physical attributes. Therefore, it has always been considered an anathema for the faithful to consider the Mashiach divine or a demi-god, or even possess supernatural qualities for that matter. Further, Mashiach maintains Torah observance and will lead the nation to full Torah observance. The Torah states that the mitzvot (Jewish Biblical requirements) will remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13.1-4). Throughout the Christian “New Testament” Yeshua paradoxically embraces and contradicts (Romans 10.4) the Torah and states that strict adherence to the commandments are no longer applicable. For example, Mathew 5.17 states: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.” Then in John 9.14 it is recorded that Yeshu makes a paste in violation of Shabbat, causing the Pharisees to say (verse 16), “He does not observe Shabbat!” Therefore, the character of Yeshua cannot possibly embody the personal qualifications of Mashiach as according to the principal laid down in the Tanach. 81 It would be reasonable to assume that the Tanach verses can be better understood in their original text. When this is done there are many discrepancies in translation when compared to Christian references. For example, a Christian reference to ‘Virgin Birth’ in Isaiah 7.14. The woman in Isaiah is described in Hebrew as an “alma” giving birth. The word “alma” refers to a young woman of childbearing age who may be unmarried or married or even possibly an ‘almana’ (widow), however Christian theologians have translated ‘alma’ as a “virgin” utilising the Greek word parthenos. Even though a ‘virgin’ is clearly a “bitula” in Hebrew. This revision of signification accords with the Gospel narrative of Mary (Miriam’s status) as a married woman and Yeshua’s birth narrative, which is comparative with common Greco-Roman narratives of mortals impregnated by gods or humans given or assuming a divine state. Ascribed Christian notions surrounding the ‘suffering servant’ in Isaiah, chapter 53, which is said to reference Yeshua, however clearly follows the themes of chapter 52 describing a ‘particular’ exile and redemption of the people of Israel. These prophecies are written in a singular form as in the term Klal Yisrael, which regards the nation as one unit or category (Klal), a people, a nation. In and throughout Tanakhic scripture, Israel is repeatedly called in the singular the “Servant of God” (Isaiah 43:8), in fact, Isaiah states no less than eleven times in the chapters prior to chapter 53 that the “Servant of God” is Israel. When read correctly, Isaiah 53 ironically refers to the people of Israel as being “bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter” at the hands of the nations of the world. Such descriptors are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Tehillim [Psalm] 44). The verse Isaiah 53 concludes with the Jewish people as redeemed, with the other nations recognising and accepting responsibility for the inordinate suffering of the Jewish people. Judaism is also similar to other indigenous belief systems with regard to an attachment to a particular land, but uniquely amongst other major religions, does not rely on the miraculous individuals as its basis for religion. The Tanach states that God sometimes grants a power of 82 “miracles” to charlatans, in order to test a fealty to Torah (Deut. 13.4), Judaism, rather, bases belief on national revelation-that is, God speaking to the entire nation (Maimonides states as such in Foundations of Torah, ch. 8). The basis for Hebrew belief is offered in a corporate ‘Revelation’ at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others’ as it says, “Face to face, (panim el panim) the Divine spoke with you”. It is written in the Torah as a statement of anamnesis: “God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us-who are all here alive today.” (Deut. 5:3) reiterated in the Pesach (Passover) Haggada (telling- narrative). Much of these details are not acknowledged by Christian commentators and represent longstanding dissent. The lack of discussion of the aforementioned and selective choice of Kabbalistic themes by Christian commentators betrays a sense of the long-standing and historical epistemological threat that Judaism represents to the cogency Christian theology, a phenomenon which is the crux of historical anti-Semitism and the source of the ‘Jewish Question’. For the European gentile theologians the fact that the ‘Jew’ and Judaism persists, ultimately and reflexively represents a threat to Christian identity and Christian ‘order’ and constitutes a long-standing existential anxiety.
@@aprylvanryn5898 He believes in the Jesus of the Church; but he does not believe Jesus resurrected. His Jesus is a proto-IRA social rebel, a la Kautsky. Like Santayana, "There is no God and Mary ischis mother." Too childish for me; sorry. Plus he believes the Gospel of Peter the earliest -- because it fits with his theologizing. Not intellectually honest: no thanks.
@@James-ll3jbI love John (mostly) but dont agree with him completely. He loses me when he makes leaps in logic eg. when he goes into conservation and climate change...or social change...not that there aren't relgious implications, but sometimes he goes too far off topic.
That was quite a compliment Father Crossan gave you young man! Keep at it & God bless you. ⛪️
I love how you are able to hold your own throughout the conversation Nahoa, you clearly did you due diligence to look into Dr John's theories as well as other views surrounding the topic you discussed today. If ever there was a physical example of Jesus debating in the temple in his early life you come are it. Your openess to all perspectives and goal of looking for the truth is inspiring xxx❤
Wow, that's quite a compliment. I don't know if I can accept it 😅
@nahoalife954 whether you feel you can accept it or not, doesn't really change the fact it you held your own. Dr. John wouldn't have complimented your interview skills if he wasn't impressed with you xxx❤️
And how are we to interpret your response to this?
@trinitymatrix9719 admiration and support. I encourage everyone to value critical thought and to chase truth. Nahoa and I may have totally different opinions on what that truth is but I listen to him because I realise that his highly perceptive and critical mind might have noticed a relevant fact I had missed and I would hate to be believing an obvious lie like flat earthers or creationists do I hope that answers your question but if you need any further clarification I am more than happy to answer any of your questions xxx❤️
Profesor Crossan is such treasure of knowledge and understanding. Love how he even spices it up with suble jokes. Love him!
This is a discussion I love to see happen. I have read many of Dr. Crossan's books. Wonderful stuff here. A balance to the other side of the debate.
Excellent interview. We all have much to learn from both Professor Crossan AND Nahoa, who has the intellect, knowledge, and equanimity of a sage.
You don't know, Nahoa, how eagerly I've waited for this episode!
I salute you from Romania, Europe!
First to comment first, always love your videos Nahoa. Keep up your amazing work xxx❤
I agree with John, you are a wonderful interviewer! I very much enjoyed this and I agree that you did your homework in preparation for the interview!
I've only recently discovered your videos, partly because you have interviewed Crossan, who I have highly regarded for many years.
Excellent interview with some great questions. I shall keep watch for further videos. Hey, I'm a fan!! 👍🏼😁
Love Crossan!!
It is impossible to “know” which is why we must have Faith.
Did Apollo talk to the oracle at Delphi? For millennia people had faith that he did. What is faith really worth?
Powerful and profound. Gesh
Great show ❤
John Crossan is such an awesome Christian! He inspires me a lot.
Found this very interesting. I do miss dominics writing partner
Marcus borg
We all miss him but their books endure.
Thanks so much for your excellent interview and insights - well done!
6:51 my badd iii just knock lik€ that😊 thankosz 4 answering❤
As dom says at end. Brilliant interviewer
I agree with Dr. Crossan that Nahoa was a fantastic interviewer. Dr. Crossan presented a different way to interpret what has been written about Jesus. Dr. Crossan's point that those with a literal belief and others with a metaphorical view might still agree on the implications of events was interesting and important. Similarly, he demonstrated how a metaphorical interpretation could be as real as a literal one (e.g., communion). Thank you.
"Scholars not wanting to get into trouble by saying what it really means".......I have to think about those words by Dr. Crossan.
He is telling my experience. Roman Catholics in Europe have no urge to literalism. That is due to the more philosophical attitude of Catholic theology. The education on those seminaries was excellent and produced many good scholars, because of this classical approach: Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger, Yves Congar, Edward Schillebeeckx, Piet Schoonenberg, Teillard Dejardin. Just summarizing some of the great ones from the 20th century.
The lad is sweetness itself.
I'm a little disappointed in Crossan here. He sort of weasels out at 1:00-1:03 minute section about his debate with N T Wright. Alas for my hero, John Dominic! Alas! I guess he doesn't want to join the more forthright father Thomas Brodie in exile! Oh well. God bless your fine body of work Dr. Crossan! Thanks for this interview, Nahoa. You really got the issue out there. How does a 15-year-old get so smart!
Sorry, there is a huge difference between taking this literally and taking it metaphorically. The difference is that I don't have to speak like a defensive, apologist loon such as William Lane Craig, Normon Geisler,, or Gregg Laurie to accept the metaphorical understanding.
I wonder if your time stamp is incorrect? Minutes 1:00-1:03, as you reference, are the introduction. Crossan isn't speaking here at all.
Nice shirt... Where did you get it?
I actually designed it! It'll be available to purchase soon...
I keep returning the this conversation, having listened to quite a number of conversations with John Dominic. I have watched and read Jacob Bronowski’s The Ascent of Man. John Dominic may not know about Jacob. I think the two would enjoy getting to know each other. Jacob would probably describe himself as a member of the Reformed Jewish Community. Secular. We humans do not escape our primate origins easily. We are, in fact, animals. Evolution has shaped all animals. We are primal. A reading of On the Origin of Species, quickly informs the reader that most species do not survive. We, humans, are subject to these same odds. The best that we can do is to do our best.
About the metaphor and the reality. The Catholic would not disagree that acting on metaphor can change you but they believe that is grace working on human your nature not your own doing.
…Interviewer is very talented
Bro. Please bring Prof. N. T. Wright also...
The Catholics celebrate the ascension separately. Why? What is the significance of Paul believing in universal resurrection? The universal resurrection happening at the very end but there are examples of resurrections or a dead body coming back to life. At least 3 incidents of it in the OT and also Lazarus in NT
I have too many thoughts. Wow, is he a profound thinker. Only 38 minutes in, but I need to digest.
I think of the resurrected body of Jesus as the church. Jesus continues to live in the people who continue to follow and spread his teachings. The Balad of Joe Hill is an analogy. "Says I, but Joe, you're ten years dead. I never died, said he. Where working men defend their rights, that's where you'll find Joe Hill."
Sounds like Crossan thought Goodacre was making a theological point rather than a historical one. I agree the mention of Simon of Cyrene is intriguing and has to be taken seriously.
Yeah it's a very interesting detail. At the very least, Dr. Goodacre is right in pointing out that if we remove the details very plausibly derived from the OT, we are left with more than "just the bare fact of the crucifixion." But honestly, I don't think I did justice to him in my representation and question.
I spent some years, typically during August, fighting wildland fires. In this capacity, I had frequent exposure to our tribal brothers and sisters. As Dominic says, Christianity was not kind to the Druids and Rome was not kind to the Celts. Likewise Christianity was not kind to those humans who were already living in the Americas. Each had their own gods, religions. We never talked religion on fire assignments. Too much work to be done. But it has put our tribal brothers and sisters on my radar. I think of the friends I made frequently.
I think Jesus' resurrection would have most likely been understood as the same process as Enoch, Moses (taken by God after his death,) and Elijah. A "taking up," both in body and spirit - not the beginning of the Resurrection, and not quite a Helenistic Ascension. But similar.
I don't think this explains the post-crucifixion sightings and meetings with Jesus - why in the world did they have trouble recognizing him? - but I don't think it's inconsistent with them.
I think Jesus being caught up in the clouds is... kind of on-the-nose. But the rest have a sense of genuineness to them. Thomas is, well, perhaps too theologically convenient. But Mary Magdelene and Peter bear seemingly genuine surprise and confusion. They raise questions they don't conveniently answer. All this leads me to believe they are at least loosely based on real accounts.
These are not all my thoughts. I'm still thinking.
You should look into Christic Visions. Jesus appears to millions of people every year to people of all faiths and backgrounds, even people who have never read a Bible or know who he is. For example, it's estimated 30-50% of new Christian converts in heavily Muslim countries where it is a crime to be a Christian converted by meeting the "man in white." It is starting to gather serious scientific study lately, and Dale Allison thinks it's a fascinating and important question of whether what they see is really there, which he thinks it is. Check out "Visions of Jesus" by Philip Wiebe. It's serious and scholarly.
Using unsubstantiated claims or beliefs to support the unsubstantiated claims from the Bible in an attempt to prove anything about the Bible is just plain S T O O P I D ! ! !
I question this guys hermaneutics. When he said "For God so loved the world" (ignoring the rest of John 3:16) as if it was meaning the Earth, it shows he pulls things out of context. He reads what he wants into the text.
LOL...as if that doesnt apply to yourselves😂😂
Why are there so few comments? Incredible.
Imagine seeing Jesus headstone “ but I’m just a metaphor” 😭- I stole this comment.
I see dr. John is struggling to understand the actual message of Jesus.
It is very sad that no scholar has been able to interpret Jesus whithin the non dualistic model.
The non dual Jesus - Christ. Xristos.
The principle of absolute inclusivity.
1. Yeshua (Gk. Jesus) is presented as a potential Hebrew messianic personality, however does not fulfil the messianic descriptors situated in prophecy.
Yeshua does not embody the personal qualifications of the Mashiach (Messiah).
Tanakhic Hebrew verses said to ‘refer’ to Yeshua are mistranslated references.
Belief and adherence to Tanach is based on Klal Yisrael’s (Israel’s national) and ‘particular’
revelation.
78 Cit. loc.:S. Magid, 2017. Jew, Christian, and the Judeo-Christian: Thinking with Cynthia Baker’s Jew, p.1.
79 The concept of Mashiach (Messiah) as a primary conceptualisation is defined consistently within the Tanakh. Therefore, the word ‘Messiah’ can be considered primarily as an English rendering of the Hebrew word ‘Mashiach’, meaning “anointed”. Accordingly, the scriptures prescribe that a candidate is initiated into Divine service by being anointed with oil (Exodus 29.7, 1-Kings 1.39, 2- Kings 9.3). Yeshua (Jesus) clearly did not fulfil these aspects of messianic prophecy.
What is the Mashiach to accomplish? A central theme of biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age characterised by universal peace and a global recognition of the particular idea of the Divine nature (Isaiah 2.1-4, 32.15-18, 60.15-18; Zephaniah 3.9; Hosea 2.20-22; Amos 9.13-15; Micah 4.1-4; Zechariah 8.23, 14.9; Jeremiah 31.33-34). Specifically, the Tanach states that the Mashiach will:
1. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37.26-28).
2. Gather all Jews back to the ‘Land of Israel’ (Isaiah 43.5-6).
3. Usher in an era of world peace, and end of all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2.4).
4. Spread universal knowledge of the Divine which will unite humanity as one. As it says: “God will be King over all the world-on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One” (Zechariah 14.9).
According to the Hebrew tradition, if a messianic candidate fails even one of these conditions ‘he’ cannot be considered to be Mashiach and therefore still awaited, even though it is acknowledged that potential candidates are born in every generation. All past notable messianic claimants, including Yeshua (Jesus of Nazareth), Bar Kochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected for the aforementioned reasons. The Christian tradition counters that Jesus will fulfil these in a ‘Second Coming’. However, according to the Jewish sources it is clear that the Mashiach will fulfil these prophecies outright; there is no ‘second coming’ featured anywhere in the Tanach. On the basis of the traditional prerequisites Yeshua does not embody any of the personal qualifications of Mashiach
80 or even a prophet and the Mashiach is projected as the greatest prophet in all history, second only to
Moses (Targum-Isaiah 11.2; Maimonides -Teshuva 9:2). Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of Klal Ysrael (world Jewry), a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE. During the time of Ezra, for example, when the majority of Jews remained in Babylon, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets-Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Yeshu appeared 350 years after prophecy ended, and therefore cannot be categorised as a prophet.
Many of the prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23.5-6, 30.7-10, 33.14-16; Ezekiel 34.11-31, 37.21-28; Hosea 3.4-5). Therefore, it is considered that the Mashiach must be descended from King David through the male line (Genesis 49.10, Isaiah 11.1, Jeremiah 23.5, 33.17; Ezekiel 34.23-24). According to the Christian claim, Yeshua was the product of ‘virgin birth’, and had no physical father, he could not possibly fulfil the messianic requirements of being descended on his father's side from King David. According to Jewish sources, the Mashiach will be born of human parents and possess normative physical attributes. Therefore, it has always been considered an anathema for the faithful to consider the Mashiach divine or a demi-god, or even possess supernatural qualities for that matter.
Further, Mashiach maintains Torah observance and will lead the nation to full Torah observance. The Torah states that the mitzvot (Jewish Biblical requirements) will remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13.1-4). Throughout the Christian “New Testament” Yeshua paradoxically embraces and contradicts (Romans 10.4) the Torah and states that strict adherence to the commandments are no longer applicable. For example, Mathew 5.17 states: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.” Then in John 9.14 it is recorded that Yeshu makes a paste in violation of Shabbat, causing the Pharisees to say (verse 16), “He does not observe Shabbat!” Therefore, the character of Yeshua cannot possibly embody the personal qualifications of Mashiach as according to the principal laid down in the Tanach.
81 It would be reasonable to assume that the Tanach verses can be better understood in their original text. When this is done there are many discrepancies in translation when compared to Christian references. For example, a Christian reference to ‘Virgin Birth’ in Isaiah 7.14. The woman in Isaiah is described in Hebrew as an “alma” giving birth. The word “alma” refers to a young woman of childbearing age who may be unmarried or married or even possibly an ‘almana’ (widow), however Christian theologians have translated ‘alma’ as a “virgin” utilising the Greek word parthenos. Even though a ‘virgin’ is clearly a “bitula” in Hebrew. This revision of signification accords with the Gospel narrative of Mary (Miriam’s status) as a married woman and Yeshua’s birth narrative, which is comparative with common Greco-Roman narratives of mortals impregnated by gods or humans given or assuming a divine state.
Ascribed Christian notions surrounding the ‘suffering servant’ in Isaiah, chapter 53, which is said to reference Yeshua, however clearly follows the themes of chapter 52 describing a ‘particular’ exile and redemption of the people of Israel. These prophecies are written in a singular form as in the term Klal Yisrael, which regards the nation as one unit or category (Klal), a people, a nation. In and throughout Tanakhic scripture, Israel is repeatedly called in the singular the “Servant of God” (Isaiah 43:8), in fact, Isaiah states no less than eleven times in the chapters prior to chapter 53 that the “Servant of God” is Israel. When read correctly, Isaiah 53 ironically refers to the people of Israel as being “bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter” at the hands of the nations of the world. Such descriptors are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Tehillim [Psalm] 44). The verse Isaiah 53 concludes with the Jewish people as redeemed, with the other nations recognising and accepting responsibility for the inordinate suffering of the Jewish people.
Judaism is also similar to other indigenous belief systems with regard to an attachment to a particular land, but uniquely amongst other major religions, does not rely on the miraculous individuals as its basis for religion. The Tanach states that God sometimes grants a power of
82 “miracles” to charlatans, in order to test a fealty to Torah (Deut. 13.4), Judaism, rather, bases belief on national revelation-that is, God speaking to the entire nation (Maimonides states as such in Foundations of Torah, ch. 8). The basis for Hebrew belief is offered in a corporate ‘Revelation’ at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others’ as it says, “Face to face, (panim el panim) the Divine spoke with you”. It is written in the Torah as a statement of anamnesis: “God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us-who are all here alive today.” (Deut. 5:3) reiterated in the Pesach (Passover) Haggada (telling- narrative).
Much of these details are not acknowledged by Christian commentators and represent longstanding dissent. The lack of discussion of the aforementioned and selective choice of Kabbalistic themes by Christian commentators betrays a sense of the long-standing and historical epistemological threat that Judaism represents to the cogency Christian theology, a phenomenon which is the crux of historical anti-Semitism and the source of the ‘Jewish Question’. For the European gentile theologians the fact that the ‘Jew’ and Judaism persists, ultimately and reflexively represents a threat to Christian identity and Christian ‘order’ and constitutes a long-standing existential anxiety.
Crossan can't be taken seriously...
1. Yeshua (Gk. Jesus) is presented as a potential Hebrew messianic personality, however does not fulfil the messianic descriptors situated in prophecy.
Yeshua does not embody the personal qualifications of the Mashiach (Messiah).
Tanakhic Hebrew verses said to ‘refer’ to Yeshua are mistranslated references.
Belief and adherence to Tanach is based on Klal Yisrael’s (Israel’s national) and ‘particular’
revelation.
78 Cit. loc.:S. Magid, 2017. Jew, Christian, and the Judeo-Christian: Thinking with Cynthia Baker’s Jew, p.1.
79 The concept of Mashiach (Messiah) as a primary conceptualisation is defined consistently within the Tanakh. Therefore, the word ‘Messiah’ can be considered primarily as an English rendering of the Hebrew word ‘Mashiach’, meaning “anointed”. Accordingly, the scriptures prescribe that a candidate is initiated into Divine service by being anointed with oil (Exodus 29.7, 1-Kings 1.39, 2- Kings 9.3). Yeshua (Jesus) clearly did not fulfil these aspects of messianic prophecy.
What is the Mashiach to accomplish? A central theme of biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age characterised by universal peace and a global recognition of the particular idea of the Divine nature (Isaiah 2.1-4, 32.15-18, 60.15-18; Zephaniah 3.9; Hosea 2.20-22; Amos 9.13-15; Micah 4.1-4; Zechariah 8.23, 14.9; Jeremiah 31.33-34). Specifically, the Tanach states that the Mashiach will:
1. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37.26-28).
2. Gather all Jews back to the ‘Land of Israel’ (Isaiah 43.5-6).
3. Usher in an era of world peace, and end of all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2.4).
4. Spread universal knowledge of the Divine which will unite humanity as one. As it says: “God will be King over all the world-on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One” (Zechariah 14.9).
According to the Hebrew tradition, if a messianic candidate fails even one of these conditions ‘he’ cannot be considered to be Mashiach and therefore still awaited, even though it is acknowledged that potential candidates are born in every generation. All past notable messianic claimants, including Yeshua (Jesus of Nazareth), Bar Kochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected for the aforementioned reasons. The Christian tradition counters that Jesus will fulfil these in a ‘Second Coming’. However, according to the Jewish sources it is clear that the Mashiach will fulfil these prophecies outright; there is no ‘second coming’ featured anywhere in the Tanach. On the basis of the traditional prerequisites Yeshua does not embody any of the personal qualifications of Mashiach
80 or even a prophet and the Mashiach is projected as the greatest prophet in all history, second only to
Moses (Targum-Isaiah 11.2; Maimonides -Teshuva 9:2). Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of Klal Ysrael (world Jewry), a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE. During the time of Ezra, for example, when the majority of Jews remained in Babylon, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets-Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Yeshu appeared 350 years after prophecy ended, and therefore cannot be categorised as a prophet.
Many of the prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23.5-6, 30.7-10, 33.14-16; Ezekiel 34.11-31, 37.21-28; Hosea 3.4-5). Therefore, it is considered that the Mashiach must be descended from King David through the male line (Genesis 49.10, Isaiah 11.1, Jeremiah 23.5, 33.17; Ezekiel 34.23-24). According to the Christian claim, Yeshua was the product of ‘virgin birth’, and had no physical father, he could not possibly fulfil the messianic requirements of being descended on his father's side from King David. According to Jewish sources, the Mashiach will be born of human parents and possess normative physical attributes. Therefore, it has always been considered an anathema for the faithful to consider the Mashiach divine or a demi-god, or even possess supernatural qualities for that matter.
Further, Mashiach maintains Torah observance and will lead the nation to full Torah observance. The Torah states that the mitzvot (Jewish Biblical requirements) will remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13.1-4). Throughout the Christian “New Testament” Yeshua paradoxically embraces and contradicts (Romans 10.4) the Torah and states that strict adherence to the commandments are no longer applicable. For example, Mathew 5.17 states: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.” Then in John 9.14 it is recorded that Yeshu makes a paste in violation of Shabbat, causing the Pharisees to say (verse 16), “He does not observe Shabbat!” Therefore, the character of Yeshua cannot possibly embody the personal qualifications of Mashiach as according to the principal laid down in the Tanach.
81 It would be reasonable to assume that the Tanach verses can be better understood in their original text. When this is done there are many discrepancies in translation when compared to Christian references. For example, a Christian reference to ‘Virgin Birth’ in Isaiah 7.14. The woman in Isaiah is described in Hebrew as an “alma” giving birth. The word “alma” refers to a young woman of childbearing age who may be unmarried or married or even possibly an ‘almana’ (widow), however Christian theologians have translated ‘alma’ as a “virgin” utilising the Greek word parthenos. Even though a ‘virgin’ is clearly a “bitula” in Hebrew. This revision of signification accords with the Gospel narrative of Mary (Miriam’s status) as a married woman and Yeshua’s birth narrative, which is comparative with common Greco-Roman narratives of mortals impregnated by gods or humans given or assuming a divine state.
Ascribed Christian notions surrounding the ‘suffering servant’ in Isaiah, chapter 53, which is said to reference Yeshua, however clearly follows the themes of chapter 52 describing a ‘particular’ exile and redemption of the people of Israel. These prophecies are written in a singular form as in the term Klal Yisrael, which regards the nation as one unit or category (Klal), a people, a nation. In and throughout Tanakhic scripture, Israel is repeatedly called in the singular the “Servant of God” (Isaiah 43:8), in fact, Isaiah states no less than eleven times in the chapters prior to chapter 53 that the “Servant of God” is Israel. When read correctly, Isaiah 53 ironically refers to the people of Israel as being “bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter” at the hands of the nations of the world. Such descriptors are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Tehillim [Psalm] 44). The verse Isaiah 53 concludes with the Jewish people as redeemed, with the other nations recognising and accepting responsibility for the inordinate suffering of the Jewish people.
Judaism is also similar to other indigenous belief systems with regard to an attachment to a particular land, but uniquely amongst other major religions, does not rely on the miraculous individuals as its basis for religion. The Tanach states that God sometimes grants a power of
82 “miracles” to charlatans, in order to test a fealty to Torah (Deut. 13.4), Judaism, rather, bases belief on national revelation-that is, God speaking to the entire nation (Maimonides states as such in Foundations of Torah, ch. 8). The basis for Hebrew belief is offered in a corporate ‘Revelation’ at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others’ as it says, “Face to face, (panim el panim) the Divine spoke with you”. It is written in the Torah as a statement of anamnesis: “God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us-who are all here alive today.” (Deut. 5:3) reiterated in the Pesach (Passover) Haggada (telling- narrative).
Much of these details are not acknowledged by Christian commentators and represent longstanding dissent. The lack of discussion of the aforementioned and selective choice of Kabbalistic themes by Christian commentators betrays a sense of the long-standing and historical epistemological threat that Judaism represents to the cogency Christian theology, a phenomenon which is the crux of historical anti-Semitism and the source of the ‘Jewish Question’. For the European gentile theologians the fact that the ‘Jew’ and Judaism persists, ultimately and reflexively represents a threat to Christian identity and Christian ‘order’ and constitutes a long-standing existential anxiety.
Sure he can. He's actually quite well read and an excellent thinker. I disagree with most of what he said here, but he can't be dismissed altogether.
@@aprylvanryn5898 He believes in the Jesus of the Church; but he does not believe Jesus resurrected. His Jesus is a proto-IRA social rebel, a la Kautsky. Like Santayana, "There is no God and Mary ischis mother."
Too childish for me; sorry.
Plus he believes the Gospel of Peter the earliest -- because it fits with his theologizing. Not intellectually honest: no thanks.
@@James-ll3jbI love John (mostly) but dont agree with him completely. He loses me when he makes leaps in logic eg. when he goes into conservation and climate change...or social change...not that there aren't relgious implications, but sometimes he goes too far off topic.
@@beverlykoloian His Jesus is an IRA Irish social justice warrior! It's funny!