Quote:
Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8
My post about John Dominic Crossan was directly related to the book. My last paragraph was intended to forestall or deflect any concerns such as you raised:
I'm not discouraging you from purchasing or reading the book, but I do feel that it is important to make you aware of his viewpoint about Jesus. What he says in the book surely is going to reflect that viewpoint.
To express that point more colloquially, I felt that it was important for anyone interested in the book to know where Crossan "was coming from."
|
To be more blunt than I was in the last post, you've misrepresented both the Jesus Seminar and the views of John Dominic Crossan. It would be accurate to say that the views of Crossan aren't orthodox. However, though Crossan was a
Fellow and co-chair of
the Jesus Seminar, he was only one Fellow of
many from a broad variety of academic backgrounds and faith traditions. To claim that he (or any individual Fellow) "agrees" with the conclusions of the seminar would be painting with a pretty broad brush. As such, discussing the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar are, at best, barely relevant to the book.
You also seem to misunderstand Crossan's personal theology, since Crossan certainly does
not think that Jesus was a mere, ordinary man. Crossan
does believe that Jesus was mortal, which is clearly not orthodox theology, but he does believe that Jesus was used as an instrument of God's revelation. His book (other than this one) that most captures his theological position is
Who Is Jesus. It's not available as an ebook, but it is still in print. You can read the introduction
at Crossan's website.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8
If I had made that post in the Politics and Religion forum, it would not have been seen by most of the people following this thread, who potentially might be interested in the information therein; therefore, I felt that it was appropriate to post it on this thread.
|
I understand your point. My personal suggestion is that "Crossan is unorthodox in his Christian views" is a relevant and uncontroversial statement of fact, but reducing the work of the Jesus Seminar to a "foregone conclusion" based on "presuppositions" might veer a little closer to religious or political opinion
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8
If TrevorViking shares his opinion of the Crossan-Wright book as I suggested that he do, perhaps he can post it in the Politics and Religion forum, and make a short post to that effect on this thread. Likewise, I will do the same if and when I can find the audio of the Crossan debate, which debate I now remember was with William Lane Craig.
|
An MP3 of the debate you're looking for, along with many others, can be found on
this page.