# Presupp. Critique of Dominic Crossan and the Jesus Seminar?



## Monergism (Aug 13, 2005)

Hey everybody.

I guess it's been a while since I've posted. I hope everyone is doing alright (much better than we all deserve). I've missed Paul especially.

Anyone seen a presupp. critique of someone like Dominic Crossan? I know James White is doing a debate with him in a few weeks. The more I've listen to James, the more it sounds like he is moving toward a presupp. approach to Crossan. I've been thinking of how to respond to him myself. Anyone have any ideas or know of anyone who has a presupp. critique of his position?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 13, 2005)

I would have to know the specific arguments that Crossan is using:
I would focus on his overarching presuppositons about nature, reality, and history. Those will determine his use of the texts.

His line will go something like,
"Such and such narrative is actually foreign to Jesus. The early church made it up, etc.," (vomit). Of course, Jesus couldn't have risen from the dead. That is taking the text literally in an Enlightenment fashion."

A response to that would be The Problem of Induction 
Classical Christian:"how do you know what the uniformity of nature is?". 

Infidel: ", but people just don't rise from the dead. That's impossible." 

CC"Really, how do you know that?" 

I"Because it just is that way. "

CC"But you're just assuming the future is going to be like the past because its always been that way in the past. That's just to beg the very question."

At the risk of being banned, I would highly recommend the debate Tom Wright did with Dom Crossan on the resurrection at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Tom's opening statement is probably the finest 2o minutes of audio, period.

[Edited on 8--14-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 13, 2005)

First: all pagan religions denied a resurrection of the body. Immortality of the soul is world's different than resurrection of the body.
Second: Judaism hinted at a glorious banquet with YHWH but was deliberately vague on the specifics of the afterlife.
Christianity came onto the scene and attacked the pagan thesis outright. It then reworded the Jewish theme around the person of the Messiah.

I meant to add that the normal critique from people like Crossan is, "Well, the early church borrowed the resurrection concept from other religions of a dying and rising god." The only problem with that is that there is no use of the word anastasia (sp), denoting bodily resurrection outside first century Christianity. Furthermore, the literature of unbelievers makes it clear that they knew that dead people do not rise again.

For all of out post-Enlightenment arrogance towards premodern man, people like Crossan need to understand that they knew enough of Biology. Joseph was shocked at Mary's pregnancy because he knew precisely that virgins do not give birth!

[Edited on 8--14-05 by Draught Horse]


----------

