Pannenberg, Jenson, and the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus (Intro to Christology)

Our website: www.justandsinn...
Patreon: / justandsinner
This is the third and final part of a series of videos discussing developments in Christology in the twentieth century. I talk about Robert Jenson, Wolfhart Pannenberg, and the third quest for the historical Jesus.

[@marilynmelzian7370]

I have been part of a project which has photographed many of the Dead Sea scrolls to make them available for research. I felt, especially in the 90s, that I was constantly playing cleanup after some of the wild theories came out and people in my church were swayed by some of them. The strange and scandalous theories always got more airtime than the genuine study.

[@AnciAlatir]

Thanks for this seminary level stuff!

[@danielherrmann4477]

I love your channel. I am a reformed theologian watching from Switzerland. But, having just finished Jenson's ST, I didn't really get the impression you evaluated his project fairly, but rather read him from your standpoint of classical theism and thus finding him heterodox or, as you said, weird. But in my estimation, Jenson was very earnestly wrestling with understanding the living God of the gospel, while being committed to the mission of the church and also not avoiding difficult historical questions. He seemed to be reading a lot of 20th century German critical scholarship on the bible, but he very rarely followed their conclusions. When it came to his assessment of the historical reliability of biblical texts, I found him the be much more pleasantly conservative than your presentation of him made it seem.

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

Dr. Cooper, I think I speak for all of us when I say, you NEED to make apologetics videos. None of the major apologists are good theologians. I hear you often making side comments that effortlessly explain tough apologetics questions that the top apologists visually labor to answer. I know you focus mostly on theology, philosophy, and history, but this is a way you have the capacity to serve God's kingdom!

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Any questions in particular?

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

@@DrJordanBCooper Responses to higher critics of the Bible like Barth Ehrman. He's won just about every debate on the resurrection or the reliability of the gospels

[@hillbillyhistorian1863]

Mainstream scholarship has become increasingly critical of NT Wright’s approach in the last few years; the same goes for Richard Bauckham’s work. Dale C. Allison is probably the best scholar to read for a contemporary Christian perspective on Historical Jesus studies; even Bart Ehrman considers him one of the best in the business.

[@vngelicath1580]

As a side, I feel like Kleinig is a good example of using ANE scholarship in the service of confessional theology.

[@Matt-Pursley]

In my reading of Pannenberg it seems to me that transcendence is what makes Pannenberg’s idea of the proleptic actions God something very close to classical arguments for simplicity. What has been in God, is what will be, is what always was.

[@toddvoss52]

Agree that Bauckham is much better in writing than in oral debates . The debate with Ehrman being a good example. So frustrating because in paper his arguments are so much better than Ehrman’s. Bauckham is my favorite Protestant NT exegete, may be just my favorite period. I’ve read a number of his books

[@AlbertDickinson932]

Hiya I’m looking for someone interesting books , as you have many books behind you please tell me some

[@anyanyanyanyanyany3551]

I believe Pannenberg also denied the virgin birth of Jesus by saying that it's myth, which seems odd given that he's willing to strongly argue for and defend the historicity of Jesus' bodily resurrection.

[@RobertEWaters]

It's tricky, because by some definitions a "myth" may be literally true. Sort of like "legend."

[@iplaylespauls23]

Yeah im gonna be the comment guy who gives you a bad time on the Van Til comment. Its far too simplistic, and really flatly wrong, to say he embraces the internal sense and rejects external or derived natural theology. He lays out his views in detail in Intro to ST, including in sections specifically about natural revelation about God. I like your work, but with all due respect I dont think your dealings with Van Til are very good at all.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Well, good thing this wasn't a program on Van Til. I did read his Intro to ST, but that was back in college. I haven't read much of him since.

[@iplaylespauls23]

That's fair, not every thinker has to be a focus of your study. But at the same time, if you haven't adequately studied a thinker, you shouldn't speak on them. I just read your Credo interview where you claimed Van Til is Kantian in that he doesn't believe the phenomena can reveal the noumena. This is a total, fundamental misunderstanding of his thought. I can dig up any number of quotations where Van Til says *every fact* reveals God. For Van Til the problem was never that natural revelation is impossible or unclear, but that people suppress it. Your claim about him is *diametrically* opposed to what he actually thinks. These kinds of passing statements, or those in your Credo interview, are how misconceptions spread. Again, I appreciate and have benefited from a lot of your work, but in this area you need to do more research or be more careful.

[@marilynmelzian7370]

I have been part of a project which has photographed many of the Dead Sea scrolls to make them available for research. I felt, especially in the 90s, that I was constantly playing cleanup after some of the wild theories came out and people in my church were swayed by some of them. The strange and scandalous theories always got more airtime than the genuine study.