The Apostle Paul - John Dominic Crossan

www.philosophya...
If we're talking about a dialectic between scripture and philosophy or faith and history, are you aligning history with philosophy and faith with scripture?
JDC: Well, I presume so, but that is up to philosophy to define for itself. Within scripture there is no talk of philosophy. Scripture talks only about wisdom. This word is about as close as we can get to what the Greeks might call philosophy. The Bible would call it wisdom. And biblical authors think that wisdom is a gift of God to everyone. But the Bible is also quite clear that its wisdom is superior because it is revelation. But in general it assumed that wisdom is something that everyone can have, a gift of God to everyone. It's not secular, not in our sense. It's not reason in our sense either, that would presume a distinction that the Bible does not make. The Bible presumes that both reason and revelation, to use those categories, are gifts from God.
JPS: Do you think that this Biblical conception of wisdom is still accessible to us today? Or do we find ourselves in an entirely different situation insofar as we experience a break between science and revelation?
JDC: Well, in one sense, yes; in another, no. Here's the problem. First of all, the Bible, the New Testament, they are all operating in a pre-enlightenment world. In a pre-enlightenment world it is taken for granted by everyone (expect maybe some very erudite philosophers who don't believe in it, but the general culture takes it for granted) that, for example, divine babies can be conceived, that gods can come to earth and have intercourse with mortals and that this intercourse can produce divine babies. They take it for granted. It's simply part of the baggage of their culture. Therefore in their culture, in a pre-enlightenment culture, to announce that your Jesus is a divine child is not going to get the general post-enlightenment reaction that this can't happen, couldn't happen, doesn't happen, we don't believe that stuff. It might get the reaction that we don't believe your claim, but they cannot and would not argue that it could not happen. What they would like to know is: what has your baby done for anyone? If your Jesus is divine, what has he done for the world? That is a pre-enlightenment question. The post-enlightenment argument that it can't happen is never used in the first century. The most you'll ever get is that we don't believe your claim. So in a pre-enlightenment world, whether we live in a post-enlightenment world or not, we have to respect that. For example, if Paul goes around the Mediterranean saying that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, the immediate answer from a polite, pious pagan is not that we don't believe in that stuff. The proper answer is: good for you, good for Jesus, but so what? We've heard these kinds of stories before, what's he done for us? That is a pre-enlightenment question.

[@theespjames4114]

As a student of Paul's writings I noticed a change in attitude and focus by Paul in the progression of his book's years ago . The correct answer is, Paul as with all of us experienced growth both on a spiritual level and as a more experienced teacher. Paul matured as we do in life and wisdom . Paul knew he was going to his death in Rome and his letters reflect it. It makes more interesting interviews to use these changes to claim a different Author.. It is my personal opinion the Greatest changes in Paul reflect God answering Paul's prayer to remove his Thorn in the flesh..

[@tidypeaches]

Interesting viewpoint. Could be he evolved in his view, like you say, but that seems like one is imposing a certain lens on him...at least in regards to equality and his egalitarian views. To say the thorn in his flesh was one relating to equality of people before the lord. See Philemon; slave and slave-master both equal under God as Christians. (His disputed books, show a conservative Paul.One that speaks differently of women etc.) Or maybe, he got old and more conservative. That could also be. But he was a mystic and really had changed post his mystical experience in the way he viewed Gentile conversion. He no longer took issue with Jewish Christians who sought to loosen the boundaries between themselves and Gentiles. He became more inclusive not less. So the progression of his life would not illustrate more conservative views. But I am taking liberty bouncing around with ideas since too hard to explain here.

[@theespjames4114]

Taking liberty.... lol.. May I say you have the most subtle way of expressing your Feminism, a talent obviously inherited through the family matriarchal tree, and your sarcastic (I hope) interpretation of Paul? assuming we are talking about the Apostle Paul? you know the one from Tarsus? Unfortunately time forbids me explaining that Equality started with Eve being tempted with the promise to be "AS GOD" and we know how that Equality worked out :}~

[@tidypeaches]

Personal jab and assumption about me eh? Classy. I shouldn't have responded to your claim, I just find this topic fascinating and there are many different routes to take.

[@theespjames4114]

Let me Apologize !I completely misread your Intent, demeanor, As I'm sure my attempted Humor was wasted :[ truly sorry... I spend most of my time in Apologetics, constant debating try's my humanity sad.. What did you mean by the term Equalitarian In reference to Paul?

[@theespjames4114]

To continue, Was I mislead? Seeing your original comment as being an opportunity to inject Feminism into a debate on the Authorship of the Pauline writing's? if so my mistake .. I was probably lead astray by the use of the terms Equality, Equalitarian, Equal, Inclusive, and Women all in one Paragraph? Ill try to resist shooting from the hip in the future...

[@jhgosnell]

Also...it seems truer to me that "the second coming" is really the awakening of humanity. In this case, the Presence of Christ arises from within via actual spiritual transformation. "The Son of Man...coming on the clouds with great glory" represents this or is deep metaphorical language for this event. Byron Katie says...your true nature is LOVE itself...this realization would be one way of discussing the second coming.

[@joshlynn3185]

Faith Reason GREAT VIDEOS But why do you leave us hanging for more, each video of Crossan stops TOO EARLY. Need more!

[@jhgosnell]

You never hear this, but it seems truer than the radical apocryphal positions...End of Days is not the end of the world literally...but is the end of "evil" or "sin."

[@marke.anderson1072]

I Thessalonians clearly talks about Jesus "descending from heaven," and "we will be caught up in the clouds...to meet the Lord in the air." I Thessalonians is undisputedly Paul's; so, how is this not talking about "literal second coming"?

[@pandirasbox]

Keyword: Cerinthus

[@rursus8354]

This is colored by his faith. On the other hand, if you believe that Jesus was a violent revolutionary, as well as his real followers, and Paul was rejected by James the Just for being an infiltrator. What does it make Paul? A try to refit the Jesus message into a falsehood, at least from the perspective of James the Just, but who did Paul think he was, of if he is a myth: the impostor that invented him?

[@earlysda]

Of course the letters written by Paul that we have in the Bible are from him, and inspired by God. This video is just trying to throw doubt on the Bible.

[@godlessbob1]

Do you know which books Paul wrote? Dr. Crossan specifies some of the non-Pauline letters. The 6 non-Pauline letters are Ephesians, Colossians, 1/2 Timothy, 2 Thessalonians, and Titus. Some of these actually claim to be from Paul but are in fact FORGERIES! Paleography is the science that is used to differentiate one writer from another. If you believe the bible on faith, you make a great mistake. Faith defined is "Pretending to know things that you don't know". There are many reasons to doubt the historicity of the Bible. Just ask which day Jesus was executed? Was it before the Passover meal as in John or the next day after the meal as in Mark? Historically, it cannot be both. This is a Biblical discrepancy which believers claim are non-existent. Deny that errors exist in the Bible all you want. It just shows that you haven't studied it critically!

[@earlysda]

GodlessBob Lee God has made you with the ability to rebel against him. Isn't that one characteristic of a loving God?

[@godlessbob1]

earlysda Some will say that your god is unknowable and beyond human comprehension, yet you sit there and say that you understand its characteristics? I am not surprised that you could not answer a simple question regarding Biblical history. Fundamentalists Christians are well known for their anti-intellectual stance. You are obviously an anti-intellectual. Studies have shown that Atheists, like me, know more about the Bible than most Christians. This conversation is a prime example. Here is a little education about your god Yahweh: Yahweh was worshipped in southern Canaan (Edom, Moab, Midian) from the 14th century BC, and that this "CULT" was transmitted northwards due to the Kenites. Yes, Yahwism was a cult. Yahweh was a warrior god as part of a Pantheon of gods, and not the loving god your teachings would have you believe. Just read Numbers 31: 15-18 "Kill everyone but the virgins but keep the virgins for your own pleasure" This is the immoral god that you worship while ignoring the immorality and the repulsiveness that it represents. There is no excuse for such a level of ignorance in the 21st century. As Atheists, we might wish there were a hell for people who abuse children by teaching them this nonsense, but unfortunately we know there isn't.

[@earlysda]

GodlessBob Lee One definition of Atheism makes it an oxymoron. If you are satisfied living out an oxymoronic life, and then dying body and soul in the Lake of Fire, that is your free choice. But isn't eternal life with Jesus the better option?

[@godlessbob1]

earlysda Perhaps you would like to define Atheism and tell me how it is oxymoronic to not believe in a god. Are you incapable of having a rational discussion? Nothing you just said had anything to do with my prior comments. Please address the points of the discussion and avoid your irrelevant rambling. Your claim of eternal life is a theological claim. You cannot claim that that life after death is indeed a fact. You also cannot claim that Jesus was resurrected from the dead as an actual fact. You cannot actually claim that Jesus was actually buried in a tomb. There is absolutely no evidence to support your claims and since no one can provide such evidence, those claims are rejected as hyperbolic nonsense. If you think the Bible is evidence for anything you have a lot to learn about the methods used for determining what is and is not historical fact. You speak of the Lake of Fire as referred to in Revelation or The Apocalypse of John. Do you know who wrote Revelation? No, you don't and neither does anyone else. Does the author make an authorial claim? I don't believe it does, so therefore, it is anonymous. Apocalyptic Literature was a common genre of writing in antiquity and anyone could have written it. It wasn't even written till the end of the 1st century, some 60 to 70 years after Jesus was executed. Would you care to challenge any of my points or would you prefer to just preach?