Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.
Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.
If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight, seven. Seven seven five three three three four one and now with today's topic.
Here is James white.
And welcome to the dividing line on this Tuesday morning here in Phoenix, Arizona. Beautiful day gonna be a hot one around 111 out here today. Today is John Dominic Crossan 101. It has come to my attention, of course as we have been preparing for the debate and the conference in Seattle that there are many even of those who are Regular supporters listeners to this this webcast or read the blog who simply are not aware of the issues regarding John Dominic Crossan the Jesus seminar and What the debate is going to be all about and so today?
I thought we would introduce you to John Dominic Crossan and his perspectives and also hopefully Dispel some myths and then also give you some idea of really the tremendous Challenge that I am facing in doing this debate it is going to be very difficult and It's going to be very difficult because the fact that I know even in Arranging this debate that I had certain false ideas of what?
John Dominic Crossan is all about and I assumed wrongly a connection as far as Attitude and even perspective that cannot be assumed amongst the fellows of the Jesus seminar almost anyone can join the Jesus seminar and just because someone like Robert Funk can be very Disagreeable and Can be rather nasty you may have listened to him hang up on us and tell us to go to hell in 1989.
That does not mean that everyone else in the Jesus seminar holds those same views or comes their conclusions in the same way. And I think one of the difficult things for most Conservative evangelicals to do is to understand really how it is that crossing comes the conclusions he does.
Indeed for most of us the problem is we know what the conclusions he comes to are we know the John Dominic Crossan. We've seen him on the ABC special with Peter Jennings the search for the historical Jesus in essence Give his conclusions that he believes that the Jesus's body was taken down from the cross and thrown into a garbage dump and eaten by dogs that this was the probable outcome of What took place and yet he says he believes in resurrection, it's just an allegorical resurrection and How does he come that conclusion that is he like?
Robert Funk who's written the 21 theses the coming Reformation and number six is we need to give Jesus a demotion. And it really it's very difficult to read Funk's material without going this man is an atheist.
Crossin is different. He is a much better speaker than Robert Funk is and he comes from a very different perspective Than Robert Funk does and so it's going to be a real challenge in light of the the very brief amount of time that we have to even clearly express what the issues are let alone engage them to any any major depth and indeed I the more I listen to him and read him and Understand where he's coming from the more.
I'm convinced that in essence. This is a debate over Presuppositions, it's a debate over starting points. It's a debate over assumptions that he is utilizing and to me it's it's going to have to be in essence a discussion of those presuppositions and a demonstration of how those presuppositions result in inconsistencies in the utilization of the data.
That Dominic Crossin uses he by the way requests that you call him Dom. And I'm not sure how that's going to work, but anyway, so to give you a sense You need to listen to him speak. He's an Irishman.
He is a very clear speaker. And you need to try if you can to lay aside the prejudices that naturally would be most of ours who would be listening this webcast and Hear what he's saying for himself in in this what I'm going to do here is I have the first clip is his opening statement in the debate he had with William Lane Craig and That I think lays out some of the.
Positions.
Very very well listen especially now. I'll probably starting stopping it. We might go if we if we possibly could a few minutes past our normal time because I've got a lot of stuff to play. Here then I have two questions.
Audience questions very different audience questions. I've mentioned them on the program before. I said I'd play them for you. I have them queued up from the encounter they had with NT right at In New Orleans back in March that I think would really you put all this together.
I think it'll give you a good idea of What this is all about and hopefully? for some of you especially in the northwest area will get you off of the the the neutral point and get you to Be at the at the debate and at the conference.
We'll be discussing these these very things so so we don't go too long. We need to get started. This is the opening presentation. John Dominic Crossan William Lane Craig the debate. Specifically on the issues of the resurrection, but it he lays out his presuppositions very very well in this opening statement program.
We have heard from dr. Craig, and now we will hear from dr. Crossan in our exchange on the historicity of Jesus. Dr.
Thank you. In my opening statement I'll try to explain to you the presuppositions that I work from at least as clearly as I can see them. I have two major points, and then why I consider those points to be important.
First one. It sort of has to do with history, and it deals with the difference between the real and the historical Jesus. The title the real Jesus is the Jesus of 2 ,000 years of Christian faith that is very easily answered.
But I find myself. I have never used the phrase the real Jesus in any book. Possibly that may be because I learned English in Ireland rather than America. I don't use real quite so often as it is used here to be on the front page of tomorrow's New York Times book review the real lives of the Brontes.
I Use instead the historical Jesus because that is a technical term in scholarship, but we like it or not. It's a technical term. The SPL the Society of Biblical literature to which dr. Craig and myself belong has a section called the historical Jesus section and that is an attempt to talk about the earthly Jesus as.
That Jesus can be reconstructed through historical means, so that's what I've usually been talking about. The real Jesus is of course much bigger than the historical Jesus.
Now please notice that the real Jesus is much bigger than the historical Jesus so one of the problems that people have is is Really, we don't speak that way. The Jesus of faith the Jesus of Scripture the Jesus of our worship the the Jesus that we understand in the scriptures is The historical Jesus.
They're one the same. You need to understand that coming from Crossan's perspective the Jesus of theology is far removed as the result of an extensive process of Development over time and evolution and hence you can speak of the two as being very very different from one another.
The historical Jesus is One thing. The real Jesus is Something completely different that doesn't necessarily have any connection to the historical Jesus. Notice how the language is already causing some difficulties there, and these presuppositions are important for me and.
By a presupposition I do not mean at all something that cannot be challenged. It simply means something that I started from. If it's wrong then we have to start all over again.
Now it is very very common for dr. Crossan to in a What would appear to be very humble way say you know I could be totally wrong about this. The problem is the way that he phrases that and the way that it's presented is that's what everyone has to say.
Everyone in this dialogue is reduced to saying what I believe about Jesus could be completely wrong. And we might have to go back.
To.
The beginning and start all over again, and what that means is what the church has believed for 2 ,000 years. Just happens to be the perspective that ended up winning out the idea that it's actually true.
Because certainly from his perspective. He's gonna say he thinks it's terrible. When he say said that when Christians say that their religion is true and and and Buddhism is wrong he think that's terrible.
That's horrible. It's a bad bad bad bad thing. Jesus would never want us to do that. See. And. So people hear that you know post-modernists hear someone say hey, I could be wrong about this. They go.
Oh, that's that's very humble. That's very humble of that individual and when they say someone's here someone else. They know this is the way it must be. Oh, he's arrogant. He's mean-spirited, and that's what makes this kind of movement proceed in our culture today.
The presuppositions are supported by a massive consensus of scholarship now. That's not an argument. That's just a statement of fact. I do not find anywhere in the New Testament that it tells you that numbers makes you right.
Are anywhere in the Bible in fact that it tells you that the majority is usually moral. It seems to be a tendency in the Bible to think that the few are more likely to be right than the many. However as a fact.
Here is a presupposition that the gospel of Mark was used by the gospel of Matthew and Luke.
All right, let's start right there. He is right that is the majority view there are minority of people who say no that comes from from German critical theory from two cent well at full two centuries ago, but from the 19th century and In point of fact it is just a theory and yet in most New Testament Studies departments and most New Testament studies today even in the most conservative seminaries with one exception I think of raft top my head.
It would be of course dr. Thomas at the master seminary, but almost every place else the the assumption from the very start is That mark is called the theory of mark and priority mark is first Matthew and Luke use mark and then they have an other sources that they will utilize and Hence what he's going to be saying here, and this is very important to understand.
That's why I'm stopping it so I can expand upon it and so you can hear in his own words. And hopefully I have a background to understand it is that the Gospels Present to us only one stream of tradition not for John's just off John isn't even for a large portion of New Testament scholarship a John is almost irrelevant historically speaking.
Because it's so different than the synoptic Gospels. And it has such a high Christology and since everybody knows that developed over time then that can't really be relevant so Matthew Mark and Luke do not present us with three Testimonies to the gospel they present us with one only one and in point of fact what you then have is a gospel is a retelling of the good news and that Retelling doesn't care about the historicity of the documents.
It's using He's gonna say look Luke. It's gonna take mark, and he's he's more than happy to change the historical Statements this is where the synoptic problems come from because he doesn't care. That's not the point you've missed that you've missed the boat if you think that's what the Gospels are supposed to be doing in the first place.
It's a retelling that Matthew is a retelling and so they are Changing the story and you see what we can do today is since we live in a completely different worldview completely different society. We can change the story to the historical stuffs are relevant doesn't matter whether Jesus rose from the dead or not.
It doesn't matter whether any of these historical things actually took place. We can look at all these historical parallels. We can dismiss all that stuff and still From John Dominic crosses perspective have the gospel see Now that that's so foreign to the vast majority of evangelicals thinking.
That it's very difficult to wrap your mind around it and go up. There's There's where there's where he's coming from and now what's the best way to respond is because this is the type of literature that is Informing the secular presentation of what the Bible is all about in all of our community colleges and our universities and everything else.
That's why we need to understand it that it was one of their major sources. Now that is where I begin. If that is wrong everything will have to be redone and of course it could be proved wrong could be proved wrong by a peasant digging around in Egypt tomorrow morning in a rubbish dump and.
Finally say a gospel dated to the year 100. But if mark was used by Matthew and Luke then you can if you put them in parallel columns. Which is the way scholars study them. Cover mark and see what Matthew and Luke do with Mark when they are using him as a source.
Okay, here you have the synoptic problem here. You have what you see for example in what we are doing in studying at Phoenix Foreign Baptist Church Sunday mornings I've been going through the synoptics.
And we are using the very type of document that he says scholars use. That's what we're using the the parallel column harmony of the gospel. We use the all inversion and He's he's saying see you can cover a remark and here's what Matthew and Luke are doing.
So we're not all of this is just one stream of tradition and since they're willing to play with the history. Then why are you people so upset about this stuff when we just observe this when we just recognize this that that in essence is what's?
Being said you can see in other words how inspiration operates when somebody is using a source that will become crucial as we continue a Second sort of a presupposition to which there is a massive consensus of scholarship again.
Stating that simply as a fact. It's not easy idiosyncratic to start there in other words. That is that in the data of the New Testament Gospels concerning Jesus's words and deeds there are three Successive layers.
That's called the first one the original layer that goes back to Jesus. The second layer Which is the tradition taking and adapting? Creatively adapting sayings and words of Jesus. And a third layer which comes from the evangelists themselves.
Now that's very important to understand so once again Operational presupposition is that what you have in the Gospels themselves is an edited Changed three-layer presentation of course you've heard the Jesus seminar and the fact that they are you know they examine the words of Jesus and they vote using these little marbles and and to find out whether this saying is actually goes that first layer or whether it represents the second layer or if it's the third layer where the Evangelist which he would not view as Matthew Mark Luke or John he would not view these as individuals who were eyewitnesses these are later individuals or or groups committees almost who have their own particular concerns and Hence, they're they're utilizing this material and forming it into their own into their own Purposes their own shapes so on and so forth, but again.
He's saying. This is the massive consensus well at that point It doesn't have quite the same massive consensus that the mark and priority idea has. But it's certainly very very widespread and when you go to your local Christian Board store, and you buy Your commentaries that have been written.
That's one of the reasons. I've been mentioning this stuff from solid ground. There's a commentary series coming out on Paul from Edie. These are older commentaries and the reason I've been recommending them is frequently They're not polluted with this stuff so much of modern commentary writing you have to spend all your time discussing these things even if you even if you don't have to agree with it since that's the form of Scholarly consensus today if you're going to be considered quote-unquote scholarly you almost have to spend more time Wasting time discussing this stuff than you do actually dealing with the text.
And it can become very tedious to work through that stuff very confusing for the layperson as well.
And that there is a degree of creativity that somewhat bothers us in all of those layers.
That what he means there is creativity means a willingness to alter facts a willingness to change things a willingness to insert things a Willingness to change the tradition to meet the alleged needs of the current time of the writer of that particular gospel Pericope of that particular story now without those presuppositions.
Everything that I say would be as absurd as dr. Greg Craig has made it sound with those presuppositions. We start down a long 200 year voyage and the trick is not to lose your nerve. Gospels are exactly what they say they are good news, which means they must be good, and they must be news.
They're good from somebody's point of view Christian point of view and not the pagan Roman point of view and they are news that means by definition Gospels update.
Now immediately Gospels update They mean that means they have to be news as if the good news cannot be the same. But have an application for every single Generation that obviously is going to be one element of this presupposition that must be challenged right up front and and dealt with.
But because I think that's Probably one of the weakest Elements of this this presentation is the idea that news by definition has to be new it has to be updated in that in that fashion.
Mark updates to the 70s. Matthew and Luke updates say to the 80s. John updates to the 90s. I say update not upgrade. They update the story. Those are presuppositions not beyond Discussion of course and if they are wrong everything built on them is built on sand.
Secondly the formulation of this question then brings up the question of the historical Jesus. Otherwise anyone would say you've got four versions go read them. Yes, but as soon as you say that Matthew and Luke are based on Mark and as soon as you say Going a little bit further that there's almost a split right down the middle of scholarship on whether John Knows Matthew Mark and Luke all of a sudden we begin to see not four accounts of Jesus.
But a stream of developing tradition. By the way, I see no problem with that. They are Gospels, that's what they say. They are. I think if we had the evangelist here They would say that is called the freedom of the children of God.
That's what it means to have the Holy Spirit.
Okay, you need to hear that because John Dominic Crossan will use terms like inspiration he'll talk about God don't ask him much about God because You know He doesn't like to get specific in essence one thing by the way you will never hear this man get upset.
You he will be just and I can guarantee you something right now about the debate in Seattle. He will be just as calm cool collected and likable in the closing statement as he is in the opening statement.
That's just all there is to it. I've listened to a lot of him speaking now, and I I would be shocked if there is any type of change Over the course of the discussion that night or even on the ship as well with Marcus Borg on the subject of the resurrection, so.
That's that's just simply going to be the case, but here you have this idea Inspiration that's the freedom of the children of God. What what is he talking about there the freedom of the children of God is to edit The historical evidence to fit what you want it to be and that's what inspiration is.
So obviously inspiration does not result in a consistency Between quote-unquote inspired documents. In fact what you're hearing here is inspiration results in.
Inconsistency if.
You're looking at those documents in the wrong way and the wrong way would be to be looking for consistency. You see the rather vicious circle that is created by the presuppositions that have already been brought to the brought to the table.
I'm Matthew. I'm willing to look at Mark telling me what Jesus said and say that's all very nice. But I think for my people right now. This is a better way to say it. I too have the Holy Spirit Mark. In those last 200 years the formulation Unfortunately of this question has usually been the historical Jesus.
Versus against over against the Christ of faith. That is a formulation, which I reject completely. It is not against it is the question of the relationship. The way I formulate the question is this. If you were there in Palestine in the first quarter of the first century and you were let us say a neutral observer What would you have seen?
What would you have seen that explains to you why some people said this man is divine? Let's follow him and other people.
Maybe equally good people said this man is criminal. Let's execute him now catch that because here is an illustration of Where one's theology impacts one's reading of history. Equally good people there certainly is nothing in John dominant Crossan's upbringing and in his current theology that provides a basis for Understanding a biblical doctrine of sin.
Remember he doesn't believe there is a biblical doctrine of sin he does not believe that there is a consistent presentation of Anything in Scripture even even a doctrine of God? There's nothing there to you know to Lay a foundation for coming up with anything consistent, but notice equally good people could come down on both sides of this.
There's give you a whole lot more of this as we especially when we hear one of the audience questions later on now. There's going to be a point here where it's going to sort of stop for a second to sort of repeat itself because there's two Mp3 files, but don't worry you won't miss anything and we know they both were there because they both did it.
How do you explain both of those? Not just from the Christian point of view, but from the pagan point of view. I am totally on the Christian side, but I Have to ask myself what were the pagan seeing that they found criminal the second Major area, which is really much more important for me than the former has to do with language and has to do with the distinction between literal and metaphorical language our actual and symbolic language if you prefer.
Most of us understand it completely on the level of a sentence Jesus lived at Nazareth is actual factual historical. Biographical whatever you would call it Jesus is the Lamb of God. We know immediately is not the same type of language.
It is symbolical and we have to ask what it means. It is figurative. It is metaphorical. Now are there stories like that stories which are literal and stories which are symbolical and of course either can be true or false.
Let me take you out of the Bible. I Guess since dr. Craig went to Peter Pan. I can go into never-never land too. Let's go to Aesop Aesop's fables and imagine a three-way argument one person saying Wow, you know animals could talk in ancient Greece a Second person say no, no, no, no, no, they couldn't but there was a stupid Greek who thought they could.
And of course the third person say wait a minute. You're both wrong. This is a certain type of story a genre called the fable animals are allowed to talk there to make basic moral principles evident. Now imagine that argument, how could you prove animals couldn't speak in ancient Greece?
I Hate to have Johnny Cochran coming after me in court on that one. Were you there with dr. Cross? Oh, no, I wasn't. Have you checked out all the animals? Well, no, I haven't then. How dare you say what could have could not happen in ancient Greece?
Well, they usually don't. That's a prejudice. Dr. Cross and that's a presupposition. Well, yeah, I guess what we have done now is missed the whole point. There's the point of the story whatever the story we were reading had a moral point and we've missed it.
We're now arguing whether animals could or could not talk in ancient Greece or whether ancient Greeks were stupid enough to think They could we have been totally wrong. Now, let's move from fable to parable.
Jesus tells the story of the Good Samaritan and notice Jesus likes parables, by the way. Same argument is the Good Samaritan parable. Did it really happen? Of course it did it mentions Jerusalem and mentions Jericho mentions going down that thousand five hundred foot drop.
It mentions the bandits and everyone knows there were bandits in the hills around there. Of course, it's a story. No, it isn't historical. Jesus just made it up. It's a parable dummy. Now watch what's happening.
There's an argument going on which cannot be really proved one way or the other. I can make very good arguments. There was historical you can make very good arguments that Jesus made it up a second ago in the meanwhile, we are both avoiding the issue which is Jesus is challenged to live your life like the Good Samaritan.
To live your life not an ethnic cleansing. But if you happen to find your enemy in distress do everything you possibly can to help him. Are you are are you not willing to live your life like that?
Now you need to hear this because it is part of the strength of His argumentation and that is he is right that very frequently individuals do utilize argumentation about Issues like this to avoid the application that Jesus himself made.
The problem is I don't think anyone really has any any questions about Recognizing that Jesus is telling a story because the texts tell us he's answering the question Who is who is your neighbor? Who is my neighbor?
And he's defining who my neighbor is. So that's not really the issue and then he's the one who makes the application. He's the one who makes the application. Who was the neighbor to this man. Well as a Samaritan there and and voila.
There you have the the application. The question is did Jesus one day? Tell this story. That's the historical issue not whether there was a Specific man who was walking down a specific path and and so on so forth in the subject of a parable.
The question is from dr. Cross's perspective in essence Jesus never had to have said this for it to remain to for it still to be true. For it still to have relevance see. That's where the issue of the nature of the text I think gets missed just a little bit by this this particular illustration is giving he's speaking some element of truth.
You do have to deal with the fact that you know what the Jews hated the Samaritans and that was wrong but you know what the the Old Testament prophets already said that didn't they and. So he is exposing their hypocrisy and there is a challenge to the story.
And if all you ever talk about is whether we're parables or historical or not. Then and you use that to miss the thrust of the story, okay fine, but that's not really What's going on. We talked about whether Jesus did or did not actually teach this.
That's the question.
Whether it's historical or not in a certain sense. I'm almost going to say I don't care. It's an interesting debate. But don't let it fake you out on the real issue. Now let me come in to the Bible. And I'm going to talk about two examples of beginnings because.
Figurative symbolical. Parabolic language. I won't use mythical language because it sounds like a dirty word. I'm afraid at the moment parabolic language sure.
Notice the language issues here parabolic versus Mythical. Obviously he is going to utilize That those categories of myth because he believes that for example the virgin birth stories are just meant to to make a point in regards to the parallels to the birth narratives of Caesar Augustus, that's what he's going to do.
So he's going to utilize that type of information. We're gonna go ahead and skip our break and And Come back To to cross and just because I'm trying to cram a lot of stuff in here. I'm not exactly sure how long he goes here.
It's a brief period of time to make his opening presentation, but I'll give you an idea then we've got the questions listen to so we're gonna skip the break for today and Continue on with with cross and try to get done within five or ten minutes of our normal time.
The parabolic language is good. It's the chosen form of language of Jesus and he may have picked it up from his father. There's a lot of parabolic language in the Bible. Let's imagine parabolic language is heavy around beginnings and endings because in beginnings beginnings have to carry our hopes and Endings have to bury our fears.
So endings and beginnings are freighted heavily with symbolic language.
I.
Opened my Bible in Genesis 1 and I find that God created the world in six days of labor or six days at least of command and one day of rest and I immediately then asked myself is this information about the beginning of the world certainly reads like it.
Two things come together to push me not to read it like that one comes from reason and one comes from Revelation and Reason and Revelation are for me gifts from God. As an aside, I reject absolutely the naturalist position the dr. Craig attributed to me reason comes from God to all of us.
Revelation comes from God in particulars. Reason tells me from all I know about evolution, and I don't know very much to be honest with you that it sounds reasonable. That that's not the way it happened.
That could all be wrong. But it sounds reasonable that that's not the way it happened. Now I asked a more important question and this is really the crucial question for me. Not you've got this dumb story in there and aren't we so smart since the Enlightenment that we know better.
But was that story kept trying to tell us that from the beginning are we so dumb since the Enlightenment that we've been misreading it. Was that a metaphorical story that we read literally and we blew it.
If it's a metaphorical story, what's it a metaphorical story about? Well read it again. God cannot skip the Sabbath even to create the world. He can't begin on Wednesday as it were and work straight through to Tuesday.
God has to observe the Sabbath. The Sabbath is bigger than creation. It's very close to bigger than God. Now the challenge of the story is then to me. Do I or do I not believe that God is Lord of time?
Lord of history and When I find out about it Lord of evolution. Once again, we can argue and we can approve it one way or the other. We can argue six days means six days morning and evening one day or evening and morning one day in the Jewish reckoning so that's what it means and In the meanwhile, we are avoiding the major issue that the story gives us as its challenge.
Is God Lord of history? And if so, what are you doing about it?
You see how attractive that is, especially in our cultural situation today. You can't you all have been missing the whole points that that provides the newness aspect you can get away from you know. All these arguments that have been going on for all this time.
No one can prove it one way or the other. There's this overarching thing. But in reality, it's up to you to determine what that overarching concept is. Anyways, and you can always make it so vague. That you can you know apply it to all sorts of of issues like, you know General calls for justice and peace and protecting the environment or you know, however you want to apply it.
It makes it very very pliable and you can you can do all sorts of stuff like that that way see. That's why it's very very attractive and also very very difficult to respond to especially in a short period of time.
Let me come then to another beginning the beginning of Jesus's life. Watch again how figurative language weighs heavily on these beginnings and endings. I read Luke and Matthew and Very very clearly as clearly as those six days I read that there was a virginal conception a miraculous conception in which God Overshadowed Mary and God and Mary produced Jesus.
Jesus is divine. Jesus is son of God. Now I admit immediately my reason says wait a minute. Do those things really happen. I Hear the Echoes. How can I tell I wasn't there? Maybe this is the exception, but then I know there's another story as well.
Another ancient story. I'm just focusing on one. Suetonius the Roman historian tells us That the night that Augustus the Emperor at the time of Jesus's birth was conceived His mother Atsya was in the temple of Apollo and Apollo impregnated her so that Atsya bore a divine child Augustus.
Augustus is son of God and divine Says the pagan Roman. Jesus is son of God and divine says the Christian. Now I look at those two stories I'm sure we could give reasons not to disbelieve Suetonius. He's not a liar, etc, etc.
What about those two stories. Here is how I read them. You can say the Jesus story is historical but of course the pagan Roman historian is. That's just mythical and since there are no pagan Romans Around to defend you and it's not politically incorrect and not the pagan Romans.
You probably get away with it but in all honesty the question then presses Did Matthew and Luke intend that literally? Or did the intended metaphorically? Are we misreading them are we misinterpreting them and our debates about the biology of Mary Totally off the point, which is this.
Where do you find your God? Is it in Augustus over there in a palatine palace backed by the legions with power from the top down? Or is it in the peasant stable in a child born? To a family that didn't even have a place to live when it happened.
Where do you find your God? With power with domination with Augustus or with Jesus and empowerment from the bottom up.
Now you hear the the.
Cultural.
Aspect here the cultural perspective. All this stuff about you know power from the bottom up instead of from the top down. And and Roman domination and what you got to realize. Allegedly, that's what all these gospel writers are all about is they seem to think like John Dominic Crossan does in modern context of cultural power struggles and and all the rest of this type of stuff.
And the virgin birth stories despite the massive differences between the concept of a Jewish person in a monotheistic context talking about the incarnation and Apollo and and Axia and Suetonius. The differences there are so huge I would argue that they're minimized minimized in Crossan's discussion in his books.
And realize of course, you know, he's his books. Well this one here how many pages. Five hundred and six pages long? Harper San Francisco the historical genius. The life of Mediterranean Jewish peasant.
Notice the subtitle here, which he may not be. Are, you know accountable for the first Comprehensive determination of who Jesus was what he did and what he said. We had to wait until You know the end of the of the 20th century beginning 21st.
For somebody to do that I just gives you an idea of where these folks coming from and what their presuppositions are.
That's the challenge and that's what we're avoiding by asking the other question when we say When Christians said in the first century Jesus is Lord They were committing high treason. That's hard for us ever to do.
They meant Jesus is Lord and Caesar ain't. Now it took the Romans about a hundred years to figure out that they were serious on that and it wasn't just some kind of a bad joke. By then it was too late.
It was as if in the 30s of this century a group in Germany began to say Jesus is.
Führer.
Meaning.
He ain't that is the challenge of these stories. Now I repeat my my problem. It's not aren't these dumb stories and aren't we so smart that we don't take them literally? My question is did people in ancient times and in medieval times and in many places of the world today Know how to hear a story.
Not really be sure whether it was literal or metaphorical but get the point and Then ask do you or do you not believe in that point? Is Jesus for you Lord and Savior or not? Two final points. Why is this important for me?
For two reasons. Internal and external the Gospels are normative I think for us as Christians not just in their production, but to create but in the way they are written. Every time a gospel goes back as if it was in the 20s and Writes Jesus from the 20s into the 70s the 80s the 90s Gospel always takes the historical Jesus and laminates it together with the Christ.
We believe in did you hear that that presupposition it is it was at the beginning. He's consistent with it. I. Consistent in the sense that it's now His viewpoint versus every other viewpoint anybody wants to come up with there.
There's no means of determining truth or error now. There's no truth or error left from an epistemological standpoint, but the presupposition ends up Clearly determining what the conclusion is going to be two of them together.
John rewrites the 20s as Mark had done before him. The historical Jesus is crucial for Christianity because we must in each generation in the church Redo our historical work and redo our theological work.
We can't skip it. And the second and final reason is this that when I look a Buddhist friend in the face I Cannot say because I think it is wrong. Our story about Jesus's virginal birth that is true and factual.
Your story that the Buddha came out of his mother's womb walking talking teaching and preaching You must admit is even better than our story. That's a myth. We have the truth you have the lie. I Don't think that can be said any longer and I think it is a cancer that eats at the heart of Christianity our insistence that our stories our faith is fact and.
You hear that? That's what I was talking about earlier. There's there's where the rubber meets the road is. Really the conclusions for John Dominic Crossan have to be the utter denial of the reality of the Christ of Faith the real Jesus.
Because of the reconstruction of the historical Jesus. That's that's where the conclusion comes out and hopefully just in this brief period you've been able to determine been able to understand. What brings about that kind of conclusion that your faith is lie?
Okay, so there's there's that and. Now there were two questions. Well there are a number of audience questions, and it was funny to listen to both Nt Wright and John Dominic Crossan respond audience questions from a an audience in New Orleans.
Which didn't sound a whole lot alike to one another was was sort of funny. It was like a very foreign type thing anyway the first one. Somehow they let a Catholic in and he got to a microphone, and I don't know I I was.
This.
This question as it was asked Bothered me a good bit. I wanted to respond to some elements of it but the response from John Dominic Crossan who is a What is his relationship? Well? He's not a good Roman Catholic obviously.
I don't think he's been Excommunicated I could be wrong. I haven't gotten to that point yet. He talks about the fact that when he first debated with a This subject with a with a bishop it was a Cardinal actually and he said by the time we got done with the debate I was an ex-priest and an ex-monk.
So whatever that means. However however we interpret that but make a long story short his background of course is a Roman Catholic Background and He views the church as abusing its power being top-down instead of bottom-up and so on and so forth and Yet despite all that His response and NC Wright's response to this question Well you've just got to listen to it for yourself, thank you.
Thank you both very much. My name is Brant Petrie. I have a question for a professor cross. Then you issued something of a challenge to those who take the resurrection literally. And I'm quoting you here.
You said if it is literal then how do we participate in the new creation? Could you give me a reading which comes from a literal reading of it? That's what you said in your talk earlier. And I just like to know to come actually to comment on this.
The answer to that I would give as someone who takes The resurrection of both Jesus and the Saints in the end literally is that the way we participate in the new creation. There are several ways baptism following the life of Christ.
But principally the way we participate in the new creation is through partaking of Christ's risen Body and blood in the Eucharist. I'm thinking here of John 6 unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you.
He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has it like eternal life, and I will raise him up.
On the last day now is it interesting that's the resurrection body of Christ. We always ask Roman Catholics, so exactly. Before the cross Jesus's words here are meant to communicate that all this is future and in fact to these poor people in In the synagogue Capernaum when they said who can understand his words there.
They're too difficult to hear they were right because Jesus wasn't talking to them and in fact he was talking about stuff that was that was. There's no way they could possibly understand it. And of course all of this collapses if you actually insert into John chapter 6 verses 35 through 45 Which you know as this whole theological thing that then determines what comes afterwards and and so on so forth.
But I guess that's that's.
What the guys say. So the connection there between? Eucharist and the risen body of Christ is made very explicit in John chapter 6 several times. He speaks of the raising on the last day and also. I think it's evident in 24.
Why now notice in John 6 he doesn't talk about his raising on the last day. He talks about raising us up on the last day, and who is it that he raised up on the last day? Those who go through a Eucharistic Ceremony a sacrament now.
Who is it that he raises up on the last day? He raises up on the last day those who come to him in faith who are looking to him believing upon him who see him as the source of their spiritual food and their spiritual drink and.
They are the elect. They are those that the father gives to the son. They are the ones coming to the Sun. They're the ones the Sun raises up on the last day not those who partake in a in a sacrament that did not have the meaning a wrote modern Roman Catholic would have.
Until you know like a thousand years down the road and. Yet, that's what's being presented here. You're not gonna hear any of what I'm saying from NT right. Or from John Dominic Crossan in response to the question however.
That's probably even more disappointing. I just. Christ disappear at the breaking of the bread. Well, he points them to the fact that he is now present with them in the breaking of the bread. That is in the way to which the risen Christ remains as if the two disciples were engaging in some Eucharistic sacrifice.
That point.
Talk about amazing leaps here.
So that would be my answer to your challenge. The way you participate in the new creation is through the first fruits of the new.
Creation namely the Eucharist. Yeah, no no disagreement at all in what you've just said except What you're going to do about it, I'm not talking to you personally. No no this is where we get our dynamism.
This is where we plug in to Christ. This is where we get empowerment, but it doesn't tell me what to do for example I think you referred. I think you were referring to the email story. The key thing there is if they had not invited the stranger into their house.
That's the verse that gets left out all the time. They had a warm glow when they had the seminar on the road. And I take that seriously, but there came a point when the stranger was going on. That's the key verse in there they had to invite him in.
Then when they invite him in I think you have to say they found the stranger was Christ and When he was gone they didn't say anything by looking around and where is he looked under the chairs or anything?
They knew exactly the person who wrote that. I think I think the person who wrote that was writing a Metaphor a parable I prefer to say since it's a story saying how is Christ present in the church today in?
The reading of the scriptures that lead up to him and In the breaking of bread which brings the stranger in from the cold as it were. You can't leave out that verse. So I agree with everything you've said.
But I want to know what do you do in between of course the Eucharist absolutely and I would even insist one thing in the Eucharist. It's not just about bread and wine. It's about the body and blood. Body and blood it how would I put this if a person dies we usually say body and soul separates.
That's classic when the body and blood is separated. Somebody got killed if you if you share. How would I put this if you insist that the stuff of God in this world be shared justly? You're liable to get yourself killed are at least extremely Removed from common concerns when we are the other.
We've many other ways to do.
Can I just again piggyback on that because I agree with what's been said? Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11 26 as often as you eat the bread and drink the cup you Announce the death of the Lord cat angelity the death of the Lord until he comes now.
We know from elsewhere in 1st Corinthians That for Paul the death of the Lord is the thing that actually Conquered the principalities and powers because if they'd known who he was they wouldn't have gone ahead and done it because they were signing their own Death warrant according to 1st Corinthians 2 that that's how that works.
But it's the death of the Lord and for Paul again and again Lord Jesus not Lord Caesar and until he comes and Paul's whole language about coming is Derived from and shows up as a parody. Caesar's Parousia.
Caesar's arrival here. Oh, that's how the language of Parousia works so that the the social cultural political meaning of the Eucharist cannot be divorced from all that you said which I which I am totally happy with.
The one Flows into the other and and back again. I mean it's the mother Teresa principle. It's recognizing Christ in the Eucharist and then recognizing him again in the homeless person on the street.
I think you would agree with that and that's and he writes Take on the same question. We'll just let that speak for itself. This next question I'm just gonna let you hear the whole thing and it should take us right around to our time.
Listen.
To the rejoinder from the audience questioner and Crossan's response if you want to get a real idea, I think of.
Of.
Really the epistemological Collapse. I didn't see this one coming when this guy first started talking and now you'll see why. Thank you.
My question is for dr. Personne, I hope my accent is not as far removed being from North, Alabama from the British accents And I hope my question is not far removed from the the topic tonight. First off I would like to say that I'm in agreement with both of you that whether the resurrection be literal metaphorical or whatever that That I'm in agreement that Whatever that event was that it certainly should and ought to change the world to transform The world.
My question is in regard to why should it what is the basis for that? My understanding of your argument is that It rests on two Issues. One is that the kingdom of God at hand with Jesus? The the kingdom of God that Jesus brought pre-resurrection Serves as one of the pillars of your argument that subsequently resulted in this understanding of that the Apostles had Which ultimately birthed the Christian faith?
Yet it appears to me that the understanding of the kingdom of God that the Apostles preached and The the understanding of the kingdom of God that occurred after the resurrection was drastically different Than the kingdom of God that the Apostles Might have understood Pre-resurrection.
The second pillar that your argument appears to rest on is that of apparitions. In other words? We all can see that there are stories or their events in the Gospels and You interpret those as apparitions yet the very documents that we appeal to Appear to go out of their way to indicate these were not apparitions The Emmaus walk eating of the fish etc and So with that I'm faced with the two pillars of your argument Arguments shit and sharing a common goal To want to transform the world as these documents compel us to do.
But it appears the foundation of your arguments Is not as firm as I would like for it to be as I appeal to that same document To motivate me to be a part of bringing the kingdom of God to the earth, so I'm wondering what is your basis?
Beyond that to motivate To explain the birth of Christianity and to motivate us to go forward. Why should we do that?
It's called faith. Let me be very clear Faith Pistis Fides is a perfectly good common discourse word in the first century. You believed in the Roman Empire. That meant you got with the program. Now pilot let's imagine pilot looking at the end of Good Friday.
His faith is in the Roman Empire in Roman law and order and as far as he is concerned He's got rid of one more troublemaker. That's it. That's not an act of non-faith. That's an act of Roman faith. Alternatively a Christian looking to say as the Salvific death of the Son of God let's put it that way is making a counteract of faith.
They're both acts of faith and I think the Christian one took much more faith to be honest with you. Because you could see at least the Roman Empire all around you looked like it was booming. They're both acts of faith.
If you say why would I choose one over the other? Because I think this is the will of God. This is what makes sense of the world all of that. I cannot prove why it should be one or the other if the Roman Empire had managed say In the year 50 to declare Christianity a forbidden religion not talking about Martin.
I'm talking about genocide. Any Christian can be put to death just for the for the name of Christian. I Do not know what would have happened. But if Christianity continued it would probably would have been Gnostic Christianity because the world would have been as evil as they thought it was.
So I do not presume.
Ever.
That the future is guaranteed if they had decided to say in Galilee and not go into the cities if they had not decided to bring in Gentiles into the The people of God if they had not decided to rebel against Rome and the temple had been burned to the ground.
We really don't know what would have happened, and we shouldn't know we really know what have happened. Nothing could stop this.
Granted everything we've talked about granted the now just stop it just for a second because we're getting close on time. But did you hear that that no one knows the future? No one knows the future. Talk about a theological completely theological Disconnect here from the biblical perspective.
No one knows future. Could. Not the Christianity might have won. Maybe the Romans would have won. Who knows this. Just this just happens to be the way it turned.
Out resurrection. That's most literal. Certain things had to happen for what happened to continue.
How is that not arbitrary? But in other words why pick the faith. What motivates a first century Individual from picking the Roman faith over and against the Christian faith.
Excellent question and.
Listen to the response. What might. What makes it arbitrary for me not to pick.
A.
Non-humane Philosophy in this day and age or a Nazi philosophy over and against the unselfish benevolent philosophy of Christianity.
I wish there was some way I could prove it to you and on say though this this proves it here beyond the shadow of a doubt an act of faith Presumes a future and only when you see what happens in that future is that act of faith validated.
It really is because there's things being done in the name of faith and many religions at the moment that are horrible there are sins against Divinity. You can say the future Validates it, but that's all you've got.
You're making an act of faith because you don't know what will happen.
Thank you very much now.
There you go his faith is a Faith not in the promises of God who controls the future he does not have a God who can control the future and You can see the massive difference that results therefrom. I hope this has been educational for you.
I hope you understand sort of what I'm up against coming up at the end of August and I hope that if you if you were sort of on the fence about being there in Seattle We could certainly use your presence there.
I think you'll be blessed by the entirety of the conference and by the debate as well. Thanks for listening to the buying line. We'll be back again Thursday evening 7 o 'clock Eastern Daylight Daylight time.
See you then. God bless.
The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries. If you'd like to contact us call us at six oh two nine seven three four six zero two or write us at p .o. Box three seven one zero six Phoenix Arizona eight five zero six nine.
You can also find us on the world wide web at a omin org That's a o m i n dot o r g where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks. Join us again this Thursday afternoon at 4 p .m. For the dividing line.