Whom Does Christ Exclude?

POINT ONE:
"Some of you sure have a gift for getting way off topic - the topic is the Eucharist and apparently the issue is being brought up by an ex-priest who is no longer catholic but claims to be in position to be a fair abitrator of whether communion should be denied to sinners or non-believers or people of other faiths."

Is there specific evidence where Dr. Crossan claims to be in a position to be a fair "abitrator" (sic) of Catholic communion?

POINT TWO:
"If you are a non-catholic - such as an orthodix christian you should get premission before going to communion. If you are a not orthodox or catholic refrain from receiving communion. If you are a catholic but think you are or might be in the state of what we catholics call mortal sin - then refrain from communion."

Is this a fair arbitration of Catholic communion?

POINT THREE:
"Unless a priest knows that a person is in the state of mortal sin or a non-believer denying communion to people coming up to receive is a messy business. Since most priests don't know the individuals receiving well they should give communion to almost all people who wish to receive it. After all Christ is not injured by the sinner's reception - only the sinner."

Does this match the information you presented in "POINT TWO"?
Would you define the phrase "almost all people" more specifically?

EX-PAPIST

You wrote, "Thomas Baum - it's exceedingly odd that the Holy Spirit would choose only one person to relay a message to humanity. Communications have improved in the last 2000 years, but are far from perfect. There are billions that have yet to log on to this blog alone - so how will they know?"

I am not saying that I am the only person but I am saying that I have been chosen to "speak" and I am trying to "speak" in whatever way that I can and it is up to God to see me thru.

You ask, "How will they know?", I don't know, my "job" is to 'speak' whatever way I can and as I have said, it is up to God to see me thru. God is God, I am merely a messenger.

You also wrote, "I think you may have an inflated sense of your own mission.", not really, but I do take it very seriously.

Then you wrote, "At least you're not a
'doomsday' kind of prophet....which is certainly an improvement over the prophets of old."

As I have previously said numerous times, "The night of the sixth day is coming" exactly how that will be, I don't know, "but the dawning of the seventh day will arrive in due time, God's Time".

God's Plan is for ALL to be with Him in the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth. Jesus instructed us to "Proclaim the Gospel", Gospel means "Good News" and if that "Good News" is not for everyone then it is not "Good News" at all.

There seems to be some who not only settle for but actually want what I refer to as the "good enough news" as in as long as they get to the "good place" then that is good enough, well it isn't.

Take care, be ready and remember, God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and it is important what one does and why one does it and also what one knows.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Farnaz and Anonymous and a few other characters are all the same person. They often disagree with each other.

ANONYMOUS

You wrote, "Thomas, "talker to god" and Moses of the NT, Baum,

Take a break from "thumping the NT" and read some of the books listed at earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html", sounds like you are CCNL and forgot to put your "name" in. I am not "thumping the NT", I am just doing, the best that I can, the "job" that God chose me for.

I imagine that "early christians writings" that you refer to was back not long after Jesus died, I happen to be alive now and I have my "job" to do.

God works in my life the way that He works in my life how He or satan works in other people's life is not my concern, I can not and do not even try to live other people's life.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Baum - it's exceedingly odd that the Holy Spirit would choose only one person to relay a message to humanity. Communications have improved in the last 2000 years, but are far from perfect. There are billions that have yet to log on to this blog alone - so how will they know?

I think you may have an inflated sense of your own mission. At least you're not a
'doomsday' kind of prophet....which is certainly an improvement over the prophets of old.

Capn Ahab: "I guess whatever floats your boat, or works for you. It is interesting that in the 21st century with a robotic probe on Mars baking Martian ice and sending its composition back to earth in digital bits at the speed of light that people are still drawn to Medieval concepts. That's people for you."

Strange lot.

Thomas, "talker to god" and Moses of the NT, Baum,

Take a break from "thumping the NT" and read some of the books listed at earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

EX-PAPIST

As Jesus told us, "No sign will be given this wicked and perverse generation except the sign of Jonah.

We have been told and I have been chosen to announce to the world that God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable, the captives shall be released and the dead shall rise.

The night of the sixth day is coming but the dawning of the seventh day shall surely arrive in due time, God's Time.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Baum - the rest of humanity awaits a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit.

J. D. CROSSAN

You wrote, "Ritual participation may be offhand, distracted, unintentional, and meaningless.", how true if all it is, is just a ritual and not something that someone either believes in or knows to be true.

You also wrote, "Second, none of that was about compassionate charity but about distributive justice. (The Roman Empire did not crucify you for insisting on the former but for insisting too much on that latter.)"

Actually, Jesus was not crucified for what you implied in the above statement but so that there would not be a riot or revolt from the people who were worked up into such a frenzy.

Another thing that you wrote, "They did not have time to debate about the exact mechanics of the "transubstantiation" of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (watch for red herrings, always watch for red herrings)". This was in reference to the earliest Christians.

Coming up with a fancy word like "transubstantiation" did not occur until later when Jesus at the Last Supper said, "This is MY BODY" it was very simple and to the point and He meant exactly what He said.

I was not there at the time of earliest Christianity but the people that called themselves "Christian", I would imagine were taught that Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said.

I happen to know that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus because the Holy Spirit revealed it to me but before that I believed it to be True.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Prof. Crossan is merely putting the Eucharist in an historical context while emphasizing the allegorical nature of the ritual.

All public rituals can be said to be both symbolic and allegorical...whether or not something happens of a supernatural nature (such as transubstantiation) cannot be established, but the declared symbolism of the actual ceremony or act is phenomenological - this can be quite easily experienced by participants.

On the other hand, spiritual transformation is a personal act and an individual experience....as the 18th century philosopher David Hume said, 'knowledge can only be established through first-hand experience' - all else is based on faith.

No one is forced to believe in our Catholic faith or to receive communion. Yet some non-believers are adamantly reluctant to respect our faith and sacraments. It has always been that way.

Ironically, their violations will probably attract people of conscience to Christ.

The seed is crushed to the ground before it resurrects.

I have no doubt Christ foresaw this.

Paul C mused:

"I agree that Jesus beckons everyone to him. The Catholic church facilitates that by allowing ANYONE to participate in Mass. It is a truly universal church and allows anyone to join. Why is it unreasonable, however, to require preparation, training and commitment prior to a person receiving the eucharist. Isn't that required for it to be truly meaningful? Otherwise, for the recipient might mistake the host to be just "just a biscuit" as suggested by some here."

Paul, just to be clear: If someone has received preparation, training and shown lifelong commitment in a Lutheran or Episcopal church, for example, prior to receiving the eucharist, then it IS OK to recceive communion at a friends Roman Catholic funeral, wedding, etc.? Or is it "just a biscuit" if they are raised in a different Christian tradition than yours?

Paul C. writes:

"I agree that Jesus beckons everyone to him. The Catholic church facilitates that by allowing ANYONE to participate in Mass. It is a truly universal church and allows anyone to join. Why is it unreasonable, however, to require preparation, training and commitment prior to a person receiving the eucharist. Isn't that required for it to be truly meaningful? Otherwise, for the recipient might mistake the host to be just "just a biscuit" as suggested by some here."

So what? Does that make it less the body of Christ for everyone else? Isn't it okay for someone to have half a spiritual experience or even a quarter rather than none at all?

The continuing problem here is the what did the historic Jesus really say and do.

Did he establish the Catholic Church via Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark 8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.)

According to many contemporary historic Jesus and NT exegetes (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Frederiksen- members of the On Faith Panel), he did not since these passages fail to meet historic requirements of attestations and stratums.

Did he establish the sacrament of the Eucharist?

(1a) 1 Cor 10:14-22
(1b) 1 Cor 11:23-25
(2) Mark 14:22-25 = Matt 26:26-29 = Luke 22:15-19a[19b-20]
(3) Did. 9:1-4
(4) John 6:51b-58

Again, according to many contemporary historic Jesus and NT exegetes (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredericksen- members of the On Faith Panel), he did not since these passages fail to meet historic requirements of attestations and stratums.

A good summary of the last days of Jesus' life:

From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.

“ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.

“While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

I'm Lutheran and my wife is Roman Catholic. As an offshoot of the Catholic religion I go up and receive the Eucharist. This is one of those "Flat Earth" traditions that goes against Christ's teachings. Follow at your own peril.

As I recall, Christ gave Peter and the other apostles "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you prohibit on earth will have been prohibited in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will have been permitted in heaven." The apostles passed this right to their successors, which the right by its very nature allows. The Catholic Church, by this right and its concomitant obligation, defines the rules, not Sally or some amorphous "Christianity".

I agree that Jesus beckons everyone to him. The Catholic church facilitates that by allowing ANYONE to participate in Mass. It is a truly universal church and allows anyone to join. Why is it unreasonable, however, to require preparation, training and commitment prior to a person receiving the eucharist. Isn't that required for it to be truly meaningful? Otherwise, for the recipient might mistake the host to be just "just a biscuit" as suggested by some here. For those who understand, however, it truly is the body of Christ.

Sorry for the repeats. Balky connection :(

This entire thread is a demonstration of the futility of all religious doctrine.

Find yourself a spiritual path that feels right to you and then walk it without trying to drag everyone else along with you.

This entire thread is a demonstration of the futility of all religious doctrine.

Find yourself a spiritual path that feels right to you and then walk it without trying to drag everyone else along with you.

This entire thread is a demonstration of the futility of all religious doctrine.

Find yourself a spiritual path that feels right to you and then walk it without trying to drag everyone else along with you.

This entire thread is a demonstration of the futility of all religious doctrine.

Find yourself a spiritual path that feels right to you and then walk it without trying to drag everyone else along with you.

Some of you sure have a gift for getting way off topic - the topic is the Eucharist and apparently the issue is being brought up by an ex-priest who is no longer catholic but claims to be in position to be a fair abitrator of whether communion should be denied to sinners or non-believers or people of other faiths.

If you are a non-catholic - such as an orthodix christian you should get premission before going to communion. If you are a not orthodox or catholic refrain from receiving communion. If you are a catholic but think you are or might be in the state of what we catholics call mortal sin - then refrain from communion.

Unless a priest knows that a person is in the state of mortal sin or a non-believer denying communion to people coming up to receive is a messy business. Since most priests don't know the individuals receiving well they should give communion to almost all people who wish to receive it. After all Christ is not injured by the sinner's reception - only the sinner.

However, if there are satanic cults in a given area that wish to desecrate the blessed sacrament then caution is warranted.

PBM75:

"I don't think so, but part of my role as a Christian, seeking reconciliation, is to respect other traditions."

AMEN.

I've found these blog posts on Sally's interaction with the Eucharist useful. I was raised evangelical and am currently something of an Episcopalian. Part of what drew me to the Episcopal church was the centrality of the Eucharist and the open table. Evangelical churches I've belonged to acknowledge "this is not our table, this is God's table," but limit the invitation to baptised evangelicals. At Catholic services, the message is sometimes explicit, usually implicit.
I believe we're participating in the same thing, yet I refrain from receiving the Eucharist in churches that don't invite my participation out of respect for their traditions. Would Christ turn me away? I don't think so, but part of my role as a Christian, seeking reconciliation, is to respect other traditions.

John, John, John.

What do you care? You don't believe the whole "Jesus as Messiah" thing anyway. You disavow yourself of any established churches. What dog do you have in this fight?

All the legalistic chattering aside. I believe Jesus would welcome all. Heck, I'll even go out on a limb to say he loves everyone unconditionally. Even Sally Quinn.

JC:

I'm not sure that other religions are pushing the same concept of "heaven" and "eternal life" as Christianity. Certainly the root religion of Judaism does not. Eternal life is certainly a big selling point in Catholicism. Some scholars have pointed out that one of the big draws of Mormonism is its even stronger assurances of life after death than mainstream Christianity. I guess whatever floats your boat, or works for you. It is interesting that in the 21st century with a robotic probe on Mars baking Martian ice and sending its composition back to earth in digital bits at the speed of light that people are still drawn to Medieval concepts. That's people for you.

It's pretty silly for Crossan to say that Jesus would give Sally Quinn communion when the thrust of Crossan's scholarship denies Jesus ever did any of the things mentioned in the Gospels. Crossan's Jesus is the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas and of Q -- not the Jesus made up by the Gospel writers.

My understanding is that Christ welcomed all. Therefore, anyone should be allowed to receive communion at any church. My problem with Christianity is that it teaches that only Christians will get to "heaven." But that's true of other religions as well.

*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************

The greater question should be "Why would someone want to receive Communion from a church that executed a man for saying that Earth revolved around the Sun?"

The Catholic church also once regularly executed people just for not being fully "Catholic."

And, I ask forgiveness from GOD, not some creepy dude sitting in a wooden porta-potty.

The Vatican, the pope, and all those child-molesting priests are all pretty much irrelevant to me.

*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************

John Turkal:

I take it that Sally isn't Catholic. If the Priest gave her communion that's his decisin not hers. Other than that, this whole dicussion is a Red Herring.

July 14, 2008 8:18 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Chances Sally knew she wasn't Catholic was much greater than the priest who gave her Communion. Red Herring.

I take it that Sally isn't Catholic. If the Priest gave her communion that's his decisin not hers. Other than that, this whole dicussion is a Red Herring.

Dennis Ferrara:

Do you think that when Jesus tells Peter "Feed my sheep" he really meant: "Feed my sheep under certain conditions and only after they have confessed their sins only to those you appoint, and only the latter have forgiven them in My name. Let no one else except those you appoint feed them in my name. Everyone who disobeys this: anathema"?

"Saint Paul" was a misogynist and you should tread lightly when listening to "his" message. He was a great figure in the spread of Christ's message mainly known for his conversion on "the road to Damascus".
However, when you want to get to the real meaning listen only to Jesus. The Eucharistic ritual as this learned man puts it is given freely by the Holy Spirit, this spirit will comfort you and bring you to Christ anytime you are in need. The real baptism is by fire and the Holy Spirit because it comes from God and not from man. The real communion is with the Holy Spirit.

That Prof. Crossan’s peculiar views on the sacraments contradict Catholic doctrine and theology in the most blatant manner will be evident to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the subject. By his reckoning, everything transpires between Christ and the recipient of Holy Communion, so that essentially the church need not exist at all. There is, of course, that pesky New Testament passage where Christ makes Peter the rock of his future church and gives him the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose, though no doubt Crossan can provide a scholarly argument around this. Funny, though, how some scholars can always find a way to show that a text doesn’t really say what it clearly does say.

A telling case in point is Crossan’s own account of the Pledge of Allegiance, where he argues that the Pledge is directed to the apple pie and motherhood values of “liberty and justice for all”. In plain fact, however, the Pledge is directed not to values, but to the flag as a symbol of the “republic”, that is, the USA. It is first and foremost a citizen’s act of allegiance to his or her country, to the “one nation”, and to American values only on the presupposition of America itself. As in the case of Crossan’s upside-down theology, this will be evident to anyone who actually reads the words of the Pledge in their natural sequence.

ep thorn:

It's our belief that the incarnation of the Word was and is intended for everyone: Gandhi, you, atheists, everyone.

Accordingly, everyone should be asking themselves what they are doing with or about It, not just Catholics/Christians.

Just one more reason that the Catholic Church should be denied tax exempt status. It is not primarily a religious organization, it is primarily a political organization. If they want to play in politics, why should they get the tax-exemption shield of pure religion?

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -Ghandi

If there is a God, he should have known better, being omnipotent and all, than to trust anything, especially 'His Word', in the hands of men. Look at what they do with it now.

Anonymous: "From Claire Hoffman's blog on George Carlin as proof several Anonymous are posting and at least one of them is a Jew"

You never read anything right. Read your own post. The blogger never said he's Jewish. Read my post. Farnaz wrote a couple of months ago about a lot of non-Jews who were killed during the Holocaust.

You sure aren't Catholic. I wonder what you really are besides being a sick, jealous, ignorant anti-Semite who can't read. Like I said before you take things out of context and never paste anything that doesn't support your undecipherable points.

You're a bigot. GET HELP.

July 14, 2008 5:04 AM

Another Anonymous:

Anonymous:

Give it up. You're sick, jealous, anti-Semitic, and not Catholic. Get help.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are responding on behalf of Farnez.

You are troubled. Maybe you are the one who needs help.

I'm neither sick nor am I jealous.

I'm anything but anti-Semitic. I assure you a thousand percent that it is true. I admire the Jews for their nobility in suffering, for their incredible achievements.

I will not respond to Farnaz again. I had no idea she was so troubled. I was only angry about her anti-Christian and pro-Muslim rants.

Be at peace. You have nothing to fear from me. I feel terribly ashamed now that I upset you. My profoundest apologies. Please accept it as sincere.

Sir, have you forgotten the nature of the Eucharist, or was it never explained to you? Have you forgotten the laws of your Church that govern its distribution, or were they never taught to you?

Anonymous:

Give it up. You're sick, jealous, anti-Semitic, and not Catholic. Get help.

From Claire Hoffman's blog on George Carlin as proof several Anonymous are posting and at least one of them is a Jew ---

Anonymous:

Settle down- Farnez!

My family lost two-thirds of our members to the Holocaust. Stop regurgitating book lists.

We were a large active family of musicians, novelists, doctors and scientists. I feel certain you would recognise several names. There is no need to educate me. My education came in my parent's loss and learning to survive.

You need to quit your urgent need to reiterate your bias and begin to regain your life.

July 2, 2008 5:01 PM

Again, why the concern?

Baptism does not cleanse the soul since there is no original sin to cleanse i.e. the sinning parents did not exist.

Confirmation- Holy Spirit and his winged representations do not exist- The Trinity is more theological mumbo jumbo invented by early theologians who had too much time on their hands.

Eucharist- already put the myth box as being nothing more than low calorie wafers and inexpensive wine.

Holy Orders- All the NT passages supposedly setting up said priesthood have been judged by many NT exegetes as being bogus.

Reconciliation/Confession- All the NT passages supposedly setting up said sacrament have been judged by many NT exegetes as also being bogus.

Last Rites/Annointing of the sick - vitiated by the previous comments about said "sacraments".

Marriage - only sacrament established by the historical Jesus as per most NT exegetes- easy annulments vitiate most of its importance- e.g. Catholic woman married 18 years to a Catholic man (ex-seminarian). They had seven children. Woman was given an annulment after the husband left with another woman in the 18th year.

Dear Professor Crossan

I agree with what you wrote:

"Finally, then, we can face our question. In general: who should accept the eucharistic ritual? Those and only those who are intentionally, self-consciously, and publicly committing themselves to live like Jesus and, if unfortunately ever necessary, to die like Jesus. That is, of course, an on-going lifelong process and it is precisely such eucharistic participation that initiates, continues, and consummates it. The eucharist both proclaims and empowers a life, as Paul would say, "in Christ" or, better "in the body of Christ."

This is how I look at the issue: Jesus had many followers in His lifetime. Yet, it was only during the Last Supper with His twelve (eleven after Judas left) that He instituted the Eucharist. The Eucharist was not for the guest hearers of His public preaching but for only those who were really His followers. Even in the early Churches only those who had joined the Christian community participated in the breaking of bread. The Eucharist was not distributed during public preaching to bring non-Christians to Jesus.

Luckily I'm a lay liberal Catholic who does not have to make decisions about which non-Christian/non-Catholic/or even Catholic (not eligible under the present Canon Law) may be given Communion in exceptional circumstances, for I would give Communion to anyone who asked for it and leave the rest to God.

"Another Anonymous --- your unfounded accusations don't bother me in the least. You might consider the fact that more than one Anonymous is involved in the exchanges with Farnaz and one of them who accused her of bigotry and clinging to the Holocaust was a Jew who had lost many family members in Holocaust. So there, don't jump into conclusions.

Jealous of Farnaz? You've got to be kidding. What about being indignant as a Christian for her take on Christianity and her rants about Christians roasting Jewish babies etc? Her claim that Judaism and Islam are Abrahamic but Christianity is not?"

You're lying again. No one on that thread said they were Jewish. Have you read anything about the Holocaust? I don't think so. I'm Catholic but know what she said is true. Catholics and Christians did what she said, may God have mercy on their souls. I've read a couple of the books she listed and some others. You haven't read anything. You didn't even follow the link she gave you on that creep Hudal.

You could learn from Farnaz but never do. I never knew about all the non-Jews who died in the Holocaust or much about the T4 program until she wrote about some things a couple of months ago. I followed up and what she said was correct.

If you were interested in what she thought you could ask her but you're not interested. You're just an anti-Semite. I also notice that you didn't deny you aren't Catholic.

You're jealous of Farnaz. She doesn't rant like you said. You're the only one who rants. You're sick. GET HELP. I'm through with you.

Another Anonymous --- your unfounded accusations don't bother me in the least. You might consider the fact that more than one Anonymous is involved in the exchanges with Farnaz and one of them who accused her of bigotry and clinging to the Holocaust was a Jew who had lost many family members in Holocaust. So there, don't jump into conclusions.

Jealous of Farnaz? You've got to be kidding. What about being indignant as a Christian for her take on Christianity and her rants about Christians roasting Jewish babies etc? Her claim that Judaism and Islam are Abrahamic but Christianity is not?

Anonymous:

1. "Faranz's posts are for Professor John Dominic Crossan's edification, so that he may be better informed about the background and may thus be enabled to post more in-depth responses to Farnaz on this blog. For further information read Farnaz's comments on Susan Jacoby's blogs of June/July 08."

2. "Farnaz, I posted only in answer to your "prayers." So you are not happy that I took the trouble to answer your "prayer?" O well..."

2. Farnaz asked you to paste "If you can find anything in which I said that the Q'ran was a more reliable source of scripture than the NT, then please paste it here." (He didn't use the word "prayer" btw.)

What you pasted has nothing to do with what you accused her of. On several threads you accused her of this Quoran vs. scripture stuff and she's said she never made such a claim. Where did she say this? She also answered you about about the existence of Jesus. You just go on accusing her. I don't know why she bothers with you since you never read what she writes to you about anything including Pakistan and India. IMO no one should bother with you and this is the last time I'm going to.

1. YOU'RE SICK AND DISGUSTING. See a doctor and get help. Farnaz posted responding to your comments and also said that she wouldn't have raised the topic of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust if you hadn't. I believe her because she didn't mention it until you started attacking her and pasting her comments from another thread. You attacked her and she responded to you. You've done this again and again. You also only paste those things that support your undecipherable points. I could give a lot of examples, but I will only mention that you omit what Farnaz posted about Trocme. In fact, she raised the subject of Trocme on the Carlin thread.

Also, Farnaz never posted to Crossan. Farnaz posted to CNNL. Crossan posted to Farnaz and Crossan explained why.

You're jealous of Farnaz and I agree with Farnaz. I think you're anti-Semitic and I don't believe you're Catholic. You just don't want any Jews on this blog. You write like a jealous, psychotic three year old child.

Don't bother to post back because I won't read anything you write and I won't post back to you. I sincerely hope Farnaz never posts to you again either. She's way above your stupid level.

You're sick and disgusting and you aren't Catholic. Get help.

Farnaz on Susan Jacoby's blog - Notes of a free-speech junkie:

Farnaz:

the whole idea Muslims needed another country based on their religion doesn't reflect Indian history and Hindu generosity in living peacefully with people of other faiths, until the suggestion was made for the first time in 1930 by a Muslim, which later became a demand.
----------

There are a lot of Pakistanis who would agree that partition never should have happened. However, a phrase like "Hindu generosity," does cause me to reflect. Should the US speak of its "generosity" in allowing people of different ethnicities/religions to exist here?

Then, too, when I consider the fact that the Muslims still enjoy second-class status in INdia.... True many Muslims are very well off, but that is far, far from the point.

HINDu generosity? Tell that to the dead Mulsims of Gujurat.

NONE of "us" as ethnic/religious identities, has been particularly generous.
-----------------------
Interesting to go to Pakistan and hear discussions of the Christians, with whom any number of Pakistanis equate the US and Europe. Why not? The Christians are the majority on those continents.

It's worth a trip there for Christians to hear it. Breaks the m mirror of self-congratulation.
---------------------
We all need to notice the cracks in that mirror.

June 23, 2008 7:30 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Comment - Farnaz's take on partition of India from a Pakistani Muslim viewpoint

July 13, 2008 11:23 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

PS: Farnaz did NOT write this, she was merely quoting Anonymous:

"the whole idea Muslims needed another country based on their religion doesn't reflect Indian history and Hindu generosity in living peacefully with people of other faiths, until the suggestion was made for the first time in 1930 by a Muslim, which later became a demand."

She did write the rest.

Note the Pakistani Muslim take on history.

Anonymous:

I find it most ironic that the only blogger Professor John Dominic Crossan has ever responded to is an ATHEIST JEW, who doesn't believe Jesus ever existed and the Quran is a more reliable Scripture than the New Testament!

July 13, 2008 7:09 AM

------------------------

John Dominic Crossan:

To Anonymous:

This statement of yours is not factually true:

"I find it most ironic that the only blogger Professor John Dominic Crossan has ever responded to is an ATHEIST JEW ..."

On threads that involve me I answer always to direct or indirect questions of fact that concern what I have said or written. Check, for example, my response to Farnaz earlier in this very thread.

July 13, 2008 8:30 AM

--------------------------------

Dear Professor Crossan:

Thank you for your response. If I may raise an objection, when you cut my comment mid-sentence as you did at JEWISH ATHEIST... it gives the very false impression that I'm an antisemite, for the real focus of my comment was the part you omitted: "...who doesn't believe Jesus ever existed and the Quran is a more reliable Scripture than the New Testament!"

I'm exactly the opposite of an antisemite. It is Farnaz's denial of the existence of Jesus and His Jewish connection and her claim that Islam is Abrahamic while Christianity is not, that is the point of contention. To my knowledge, Abraham was known as Abram when Ishmael was born, and was given the name Abraham later. Judaism had not really started when Ishmael and his Egyptian mother was sent away. God promised only the children of Sarah His special blessings. So I'm confused about Farnaz's interpretation. Maybe you could shed some light for my sake and Farnaz's?

If in your opinion Abraham didn't exist at all, it is even worse for Mohammad and his connection to Abraham.

I find Farnaz's position as a Jew most unusual. I tend to think many well known Jews have a different opinion to Farnaz. Eg Rabbi David Wolpe etc etc. I find Farnaz's stand a mystery, especially her strong Pakistani Muslim loyalties. (Ref her comments on Claire Hoffman's blog on George Carlin and Susan Jacoby's June/July 08.)

Anonymous:

I find it most ironic that the only blogger Professor John Dominic Crossan has ever responded to is an ATHEIST JEW, who doesn't believe Jesus ever existed and the Quran is a more reliable Scripture than the New Testament!

July 13, 2008 7:09 AM

------------------------

John Dominic Crossan:

To Anonymous:

This statement of yours is not factually true:

"I find it most ironic that the only blogger Professor John Dominic Crossan has ever responded to is an ATHEIST JEW ..."

On threads that involve me I answer always to direct or indirect questions of fact that concern what I have said or written. Check, for example, my response to Farnaz earlier in this very thread.

July 13, 2008 8:30 AM

--------------------------------

Dear Professor Crossan:

Thank you for your response. If I may raise an objection, when you cut my comment mid-sentence as you did at JEWISH ATHEIST... it gives the very false impression that I'm an antisemite, for the real focus of my comment was the part you omitted: "...who doesn't believe Jesus ever existed and the Quran is a more reliable Scripture than the New Testament!"

I'm exactly the opposite of an antisemite. It is Farnaz's denial of the existence of Jesus and His Jewish connection and her claim that Islam is Abrahamic while Christianity is not, that is the point of contention. To my knowledge, Abraham was known as Abram when Ishmael was born, and was given the name Abraham later. Judaism had not really started when Ishmael and his Egyptian mother was sent away. God promised only the children of Sarah His special blessings. So I'm confused about Farnaz's interpretation. Maybe you could shed some light for my sake and Farnaz's?

If in your opinion Abraham didn't

I find Farnaz's position as a Jew most unusual. I tend to think many well known Jews have a different opinion to Farnaz. Eg Rabbi David Wolpe etc etc. I find Farnaz's stand a mystery, especially her strong Pakistani Muslim loyalties. (Ref her comments on Claire Hoffman's blog on George Carlin and Susan Jacoby's June/July 08.)

Farnaz, I posted only in answer to your "prayers." So you are not happy that I took the trouble to answer your "prayer?" O well...

Faranz's posts are for Professor John Dominic Crossan's edification, so that he may be better informed about the background and may thus be enabled to post more in-depth responses to Farnaz on this blog. For further information read Farnaz's comments on Susan Jacoby's blogs of June/July 08.

CCNL-

Well, you've made the choice it appears. This is why
generally I ignore you.

You are immersed in your own "liberal theologian" folly.

Jesus is waiting for you. I hope you come around.

That last post with the bibliography was mine.

I FIND IT VERY DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT ANON/JAC IS CATHOLIC.

Folks:

Since Anon/JAC, self-proclaimed, though dubious, Catholic is evidently not going to paste the bibliography that supports the claims I made on the post she pasted, I will do so here. On Hudal, a good start is the Wikepedia article I asked Anon/JAC to look at. NB, please: I've added two important books by Lanugmuir, two classics by George Mosse, and the Holocaust Encyclopedia (one volume, about $20.00, dated in some respects, but still a good reference source) but this is still a very scant list. Thousands of books, many websites, deal with the topic.

This will be my last post on this. I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT ANON/JAC IS CATHOLIC.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ernst Klee, Willi Dressen, Volker Riess, eds. "The Good Old Days": The Holocaust as Seen by Its Perpetrators and Bystanders****

Christopher Browning. "Ordinary Men"
---------------------------------------------
http://www.ushmm.org/ AN EXCELLENT SITE. There are many more, but here you'll find a wealth of information to start with.

Ed. George Mosse. The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich, 1964.

Ed. George Mosse. Nazi Culture: Intellectual, Cultural and Social Life in the Third Reich (1966).

Gavin Langmuir. Toward a Definition of Antisemitism and History (1990).

Gavin Langmuir. Religion and Antisemitism (1990).

Walter Laqueur and Judith T. Baumel. The Holocaust Encyclopedia (Yale UP, 2001)

Gita Sereny. "Into That Darkness"

Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews. Vols. I-III

Leny Yahil. The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry

Lucy Dawidowicz, The War against The Jews

Betrayal: German Churches and the Holocaust. Ed.
Robert P. Ericksen, Susannah Heschel**

The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945. Richard Steigmann-Gall**

Mothers in the Fatherland: Women, the Family and Nazi Politics. Claudia Koonz

Robert A. Krieg. Catholic Theologians in Nazi Germany

Paul Johnson. "A History of the Jews"

Leon Poliakov:
L'étoile jaune - La situation des Juifs en France sous l'Occupation - Les législations nazie et vichyssoise

Harvest of Hate: The Nazi Program for the Destruction of Jews in Europe 1956

The History of Anti-Semitism: From the Time of Christ to the Court Jews

The History of Anti-Semitism: From Mohammed to the Marranos

The History of Anti-Semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner

The History of Anti-Semitism: Suicidal Europe. 1870-1933

The Aryan Myth: A History of Racist and Nationalistic Ideas In Europe

Jews Under the Italian Occupation

L`envers du Destin»

"De l'antisionisme à l'antisémitisme" (1969)

Why the concern?

Baptism does not cleanse the soul since there is no original sin to cleanse i.e. the sinning parents did not exist.

Confirmation- Holy Spirit and his winged representations do not exist- The Trinity is more theological mumbo jumbo invented by early theologians who had too much time on their hands.

Eucharist- already put the myth box as being nothing more than low calorie wafers and inexpensive wine.

Holy Orders- All the NT passages supposedly setting up said priesthood have been judged by many NT exegetes as being bogus.

Reconciliation/Confession- All the NT passages supposedly setting up said sacrament have been judged by many NT exegetes as also being bogus.

Last Rites/Annointing of the sick - vitiated by the previous comments about said "sacraments".

Marriage - only sacrament established by the historical Jesus as per most NT exegetes- easy annulments vitiate most of its importance- e.g. Catholic woman married 18 years to a Catholic man (ex-seminarian). They had seven children. Woman was given an annulment after the husband left with another woman in the 18th year.

ANON/JAC POSTS; the whole idea Muslims needed another country based on their religion doesn't reflect Indian history and Hindu generosity in living peacefully with people of other faiths, until the suggestion was made for the first time in 1930 by a Muslim, which later became a demand.

----------------
i did not write this. When Catholics and Protestants refer to the state of Israel, they refer to Israelis as "Jews." Although some on this blog have objected, the majority have asserted that since Israel's most numerous population is, in some sense, Jewish, it is fair to refer to them as Jews. I would think that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
____________

I AM AWAITING YOUR SUMMARY ON BISHOP HUDAL, ANON/JAC, SELF-PROCLAIMED, THOUGH DUBIOUS, CATHOLIC. I AM AWAITING THE PASTING OF MY BIBLIOGRAPHY.

I FIND IT VERY DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE YOU ARE CATHOLIC.

Farnaz:

the whole idea Muslims needed another country based on their religion doesn't reflect Indian history and Hindu generosity in living peacefully with people of other faiths, until the suggestion was made for the first time in 1930 by a Muslim, which later became a demand.
----------

There are a lot of Pakistanis who would agree that partition never should have happened. However, a phrase like "Hindu generosity," does cause me to reflect. Should the US speak of its "generosity" in allowing people of different ethnicities/religions to exist here?

Then, too, when I consider the fact that the Muslims still enjoy second-class status in INdia.... True many Muslims are very well off, but that is far, far from the point.

HINDu generosity? Tell that to the dead Mulsims of Gujurat.

NONE of "us" as ethnic/religious identities, has been particularly generous.
-----------------------
Interesting to go to Pakistan and hear discussions of the Christians, with whom any number of Pakistanis equate the US and Europe. Why not? The Christians are the majority on those continents.

It's worth a trip there for Christians to hear it. Breaks the m mirror of self-congratulation.
---------------------
We all need to notice the cracks in that mirror.

June 23, 2008 7:30 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Comment - Farnaz's take on partition of India from a Pakistani Muslim viewpoint

Thank you, JAC, for pasting my comments on the Holocaust. I stand by them. WOULD YOU ALSO POST THE BIBLIOGRAPHY I PASTED THERE, WHICH GIVES AMPLE SUPPORT FOR MY ASSERTIONS?

Let me repeat, that IMHO, Poliakov is the place to start, although there has been an endless number of books on the topic, since first he wrote.

WHILE YOU'RE AT IT, JAC, kindly inform our fellow bloggers on the activities of Bishop Hudal. You may summarize them from Wikepedia, which, I would imagine, even you can read. Bishop Hudal is a good beginning for you. If you can write a coherent summary on him, including his activities on the ratline, I will give you others to research. There is no shortage, sad to say. UNLIKE THE VATICAN, you seem incapable of grasping the truth. I cannot believe you are Catholic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Hudal

FOLKS,

This self-proclaimed Catholic, Anon/JAC, has it in for yours truly. I would never have introduced the subject of the Shoah, of European or American antisemitism, onto this thread out of respect for the topic. However, since this self-proclaimed Catholic, an antisemite, has done so, there is nothing for it. If JAC doesn't paste the bibliography I posted, I will do so.

I FIND IT VERY DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT JAC IS CATHOLIC.

Anyone who seeks Christ should never be refused, no matter the role of the receiver or the giver.

Farnaz:

Anon,

Your Anglican church will not save Pakistan. The Saudi funded Maddrassahs outnumber you by far. Christians have been, can and will be imprisoned and/or killed if their presence is felt too strongly. I don't know the last time you were in Islamabad. I don't know if you are keeping up with events in Pasur.

Unless and until the Judciary is restored, nothing and no one is safe. The majority of Pakistanis want democracy. Too late, this government has decided that it would be easier for them to manipulate democracies than to manipulate dictatorships.

Yes, and yes, regarding the American Civil Rights movement. One cannot expect the speed of amelioration in India that was witnessed in America. More activism in India would help though. Outspokeness by Indians here would help. One does hear this from Pakistani academics here. Interesting.

I wonder if things would have been different for us Middle Eastern Jews, three million in exile, countless dead, if someone had spoken out loudly.

June 30, 2008 11:30 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Comment - Farnaz's in-depth knowledge of Pakistan as a result of having lived and taught there explains her strong sympathies for Islam.

Farnaz:

Christian Anon,

Re: Pakistan

Just saw report from Pentagon on Pakistani military incursions into FATA: A complete failure.
The Taliban were tipped off by sympathisizers from within the Pakistani military.

Pentagon Assessment: Situation bad. Majority of extremists entrenched in FATA. The danger to the US is much greater than it was four or five years ago. Only a large military presence that rids FATA area by area, holding each area as it proceeds can work. In the meantime, there are defenseless civilians there, including a former student of mine.

Most of my life, I thought the world's end would begin in the Middle East. A lot of my friends thought it would be Kasmir, never on my list of contenders. Pakistan is in the worst situation I have seen in my lifetime, with even the average Pakistani, typically unflappable, more and more unnerved. Benazir murdered, no judiciary, FATA under siege.

What will happen? What is next?

July 1, 2008 4:20 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Comment - Farnaz's concern for Pakistan

Farnaz:

Anon writes:

his lumping together of all religions makes for perfectly politically correct "communications." It adds no differentiated knowledge or meaningful criticism....

Agree absolutely. The differences among Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are enormous. Those between Judaism and Christianity make the two systems almost opposite. As any religious studies, Judaic Studies, or Islamic Studies scholar will tell you, Judaism and Islam have far more in common with each other than either does with Christianity.

Both Judaism and Islam are ways of life; neither is a confessional religion. A significant amount of the Shariah was derived from the Torah. Anti-idolatry begins with Moses and is carried into Islam.

The list goes on, and, here I am only addressing three monotheistic religions, what the Vatican calls Abrahamic. IN MY VIEW, JUDAISM AND ISLAM ARE, INDEED, ABRAHAMIC. I CAN'T SEE ABRAHAM IN CHRISTIANITY. (Capitals mine for emphasis.)

July 1, 2008 9:04 PM

Farnaz:

PaganPlace:

How did Nazi Germany happen?

People *let it.*
-----------

Sorry, but they didn't "let it," they made it happen. Again, I recommend Leon Poliakov. Part of the problem with European history is that it doesn't view its inaugural racism, antisemitism, as European history, but as Jewish history. It treats its mass murders beginning in the Middle Ages the way American history books treated slavery.

Further, it is of the utmost importance that Jew slaughtering in the 1930s was not a German phenomena. It spread to Austria, Rumania, Poland, Hungary, the then various slavic republics, Russia, Ukraine, Serbia (sorry, but, yes), Croatia, Greece, France, etc., etc.

Frequently the native Christian/Catholic church goers started the killing, torturing, raping, baby bashing against walls, long before the nazis arrived. In all of these countries Jews were second-class citizens with limited rights. This is not a matter of hypothesizing, arguing, guessing, opinion. It is a matter of historical fact, of the historical record.

July 1, 2008 11:55 PM

Farnaz:

Anon and PaganPlace,

I realize that Jews cannot be read. So, try to pretend I'm one of your Christian/Catholic people.

Read my posts, and try to grasp this. Historians, Jewish and otherwise (you can read the otherwise) have made this point over and over again.

The EuroChristians/Catholics, not Adolf all by himself, not "the Germans" perpetrated the Holocaust.

Again, imagine me to be one of your secular and/or religious C people, and try to grasp what I'm saying.

Sincerely,
Farnaz (the invisible J woman)

July 2, 2008 12:10 AM

Anonymous:

Farnez!

Marin Niemuler ??

In two misspelled words you discredit yourself as a trustworthy poster and mark your words as skewed and bigoted.

Martin Niemöller (German Lutheran Pastor) came to oppose the Nazis and actively speak against them. It was largely his connections to wealthy businessmen that saved him until 1937, when he was imprisoned at Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps.

He survived to be a leading voice of penance and reconciliation for the German people after World War II.

"asked in 1971 about the correct version of the quote, Niemöller said he was not quite sure when he had said the famous words but, if people insist upon citing them, he preferred this version:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Did you think his wife wrote it while she roasted a Jewish baby ??

Start to consider if you are not clinging to the past- repeating one-sided truths that only keep you imprisoned in the past.

Consider Le Chambon-sur-Lignon- a small village in Southern France that became a haven for Jews fleeing from the Nazis during World War II.

Their minister Andre Trocme and his wife Magda foresaw the holocaust and under their leadership the entire citizenship of Chambon-sur-Lignon risked their lives to hide Jews who were being rounded up by the Nazis for shipment to death camps. They were hidden in private homes and on farms in the area- as well as in public institutions. Whenever the Nazi patrols came searching- they were hidden in the countryside. They would walk out into the fields and sing loudly to signal to those hidden- it was safe to come out again.

In addition to providing shelter, the citizens of the town obtained forged identification and ration cards for Jews to use and then helped them cross the border to the safety of neutral Switzerland. Some of the residents were arrested by the Gestapo. Pastor Trocmé's cousin, Daniel Trocmé, who was sent to Maidanek concentration camp where he was killed.

By holding on to your one-sided bigoted views- you deny the truth of these brave Christians. You become a mirror image of the thing you hate. Religious stereotypical hatred is not an exclusive trait of any one religion.

Stop and think..

July 2, 2008 12:06 PM

Posted on Claire Hoffman's blog - George Carlin ---

Anonymous:

Farnez!

You cling to your mistaken belief that Christians are jew-hating evil-doers. For you- altruism is "unique" and disassociated with Christianity.

You are narrow-minded and bigoted when you repeatedly cherish your myopic views. Its like you enjoy picking the scab so you can relive the wound and keep it festering. You make your own malaise.

Listen to yourself:

"Frequently the native Christian/Catholic church goers started the killing, torturing, raping, baby bashing against walls, long before the nazis arrived. In all of these countries Jews were second-class citizens with limited rights. This is not a matter of hypothesizing, arguing, guessing, opinion. It is a matter of historical fact, of the historical record."

Your rigid desire to document and prove as true a stereotypical "black or white" history of the past sounds like the rantings of any fanatical bigot. Like the misspelling of a Pastor's names- your truth is narrowed to suit your story. The Pastor does not enhance your story- so his life has no meaning to you.

You say-

"We are talking about millions of Europeans involved one way or another in killing millions of others."

I must remind you people kill others in a blood rage of insanity. And it has happened more than once. I worked with other Christians to enlighten the free world when the killing in Rwanda ignited a genocide. We were online and in contact with those living the madness in Rwanda who were pleading for us to intercede for them. We were impotent in all our efforts. Our pleadings were met with blind eyes and closed doors: even "give us time to decide how many must die before it becomes a "true genocide" while the river ran with blood and bodies.

Now the work for all Rwanda is forgiveness and reconciliation. It will take generations. Its an old story. Its been told before.

July 2, 2008 4:05 PM

Posted on July 13, 2008 17:55

Viejita del oeste:
Thank you for that, Elijah P. The Jewish concept of the Mashiach (as distinct from God's physical offspring, which is a pagan concept) is a subject I'd like to see taken seriously on this page.
----------------
The concept of Moshiach (משיח) = "annointed one," is, as you probably know, figured in Isaiah. Judaism does not, at present, have an opinion to which all Jews subscribe. All Jews do subscribe to the construct of tikkun olam (minimally, "healing, repairing, or perfecting the world") which is the task of Jews. Once this is done, the way will be paved for Moschiach and the Messianic Age, but, again, it is the task of human beings to perfect the world first.

What or who is Mashiach? For some, he is a human being, a descendant of the Davidic king. For others, he is not a he, but a concept. For some, he is the Messianic Age itself. In the Messianic Age, Jews believe war, disease, all the evil and ailments of man will cease. The world will reveal itself in all its loveliness.

Anon/JAC:

I would like to clarify a point on saying Kaddish.
Orthodox, whether Progressive or Traditional, do not permit women to say Kaddish as part ot a "minyon," group of ten required for certain prayers. The same is true, of course, for the Haredi. Conservative Egalitarian, Reformed, and Reconstructionist Synagogues do permit women in Minyons.

Crossan,
Do you go people's houses and go right for the refrigerator and help yourself to a drink, or look in the pantry for a snack? Do you knock at the door of a friend's house or do you just walk in?

What you do not understand Crosan is that the question of Sally's communion with respect to christianity has nothing to do with her decision to take communion knowing that it was not allowed for Sally in the RC church. It was, in short, being rude.

Now you can discuss whether Christ would have given communion to Sally, or whether the church has a right to withhold it. But that is not the point. The point is that Sally was rude to the church Russert loved. She may have upset Russert's family and friends, I don't know, but what I do know is that when you go to someone else's house you are under their hospitality and should abide by their rules, whether you personally like them or not. Anything else is arrogant and rude. As an atheist, I realy don't care whether communion is for RC's only or all christians, I realy do not care, but we live in a society where we respect others and their rules in their house. Sally not only did not respect the RC's rules, she went out of her way to do so.

Elijah P.: If we are honest with ourselves we will recognize that Jesus of Nazareth lived as a pious Jew and died as a pious Jew. He was converted several hundred years after his death into the incarnation of the Jewish Deity. This would have completely shocked his basic Judaic conception of ineffable completely incorporeal Deity. It would have further shocked him to imagine that his followers would be convinced they were drinking his blood. In fact, he would have been shocked that his followers were being encouraged to drink any blood at all, as that is completely in contradiction to Jewish law as he would have understood it. In addition, the transformation of any material substance into the Deity would have seemed to him bizarre indeed.
----------------
The prohibition against ingesting animal blood (one of the laws of the kasruth)is in the Torah and was followed long before Jesus lived. Even symbolically, the notion of ingesting blood would have sickened Jews of Jesus's time. Similarly, by that time, the understanding among many Jews of HaShem, the deity, had reached hugely abstract proportions. That is to say, anthropomorphic figuration was disappearing.

From the beginnings, as far as I know, Jews did not consider the deity to be like unto a man. I cannot imagine any Jew thinking of the deity as becoming "incarnate."

Which leads us to--

"In addition, the transformation of any material substance into the Deity would have seemed to him bizarre indeed."

Thus it would have seemed to all Jews.

Anon/JAC

Anonymous:
"I find it most ironic that the only blogger Professor John Dominic Crossan has ever responded to is an ATHEIST JEW, who doesn't believe Jesus ever existed and the Quran is a more reliable Scripture than the New Testament!"

Anon,

I have never said the the Qu'ran is "a more reliable scripture on the NT," nor have I ever said Jesus never existed. The business about the relation of the Qu'ran to the NT was raised by MARIA JANNA on another thread.

If you can find anything in which I said that the Q'ran was a more reliable source of scripture than the NT, then please paste it here.

I do not recall having ever said Jesus never existed, although, when embattled with CCNL, I may have come close to it. That would be CCNL of Moses, "the Tablet-Man." I am happy to see he has removed the superfluous hyphen. THe Tanakh is the sacred text of Judaism. MOses, whether he existed or not, is taken seriously by Jews, the construct, the concept.

You continually misread what I write, confuse what I've said with what other bloggers have written. As Dale wrote on another thread, "You seem confused."
-------------
From another thread:

ON THE MATTER OF JEWISH OBSERVANCE: Observant Jews, by which Jews of the three major branches and Reconstructionism, minimally attend services on Friday and Saturday. Many progressive, traditional Orthodox, and Haredi attend seven days a week. If an adherent of one of the three major branches, he or she will also keep the koshreth,etc.

On JEWS and the HEBREW LANGAUGE: Adherents of the three major branches and the Haredi read Hebrew. Hebrew school education for adherents of the three major branches begins at the age of eight and culminates with the bat batzvah (girls) and bar Mitzvah (boys). The term means, roughly, "one who is now governed by the commandments." In the main, Orthodox Jewish girls are not called to read the Torah with the coming of bat Mitzvah and the same is the case with the Haredi, although progress has been made and continues to be.

The above is minimal Jewish education. There are Jews who have not had this education (not too many boys), and who attend services on the High Holy days and may say Kaddish when a parent, sibling, or child dies. In the former case, those who do not read Hebrew follow along in English. High Holy Day observance is the extent of their religious practice. As for saying Kaddish after the death of a loved one, if the adherent is in a synagogue of one of the major branches (he/she would not go to a Haredi synagogue, although the Haredi would welcome him/her), he or she will be helped to say kaddish in HEBREW by the congregants.

The current diversity in Reconstructionist Judaism mades it difficult for me to make any definitive statements on the above.

Wikepedia has articles on all that I've said and on Reconstructionism.

I FIND IT VERY DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE YOU ARE CATHOLIC. I have never met a Catholic who says that Catholicism "includes Judaism." I have never met a Catholic who continually accuses another of things she has not said or done. I have never met a Catholic who thinks he or she knows more about Judaism than Jews do.

If Jesus lived today, he would be concerned about a lot of things
which would be more important than who takes communion---
war, hunger, torture, murder, intolerance, hate, to name a few.

"Between 1950 and 1969, he was a member of a 13th-century Roman Catholic religious order, the Servites.."

How did he get back and forth from the Middle Ages?

Seriously, was he not a member of a religious order FOUNDED in the 13th-century?

"Between 1950 and 1969, he was a member of a 13th-century Roman Catholic religious order, the Servites.."

How did he get back and forth from the Middle Ages?

Seriously, was he not a member of a religious order FOUNDED in the 13th-century?

I'm confused? Where does one go after death but before the final judgment day? The soul leaves the body at death the nuns told me. But you can't get to heaven or hell til the judgment day. What do we do til then?

Elijah P.:

Most excellent observations and conclusions and worth repeating!!

"If we are honest with ourselves we will recognize that Jesus of Nazareth lived as a pious Jew and died as a pious Jew. He was converted several hundred years after his death into the incarnation of the Jewish Deity. This would have completely shocked his basic Judaic conception of ineffable completely incorporeal Deity. It would have further shocked him to imagine that his followers would be convinced they were drinking his blood. In fact, he would have been shocked that his followers were being encouraged to drink any blood at all, as that is completely in contradiction to Jewish law as he would have understood it. In addition, the transformation of any material substance into the Deity would have seemed to him bizarre indeed.

Let us not ask what the historical Jesus would have thought of communion."

K. I. S. S.

If you accept an invitation to supper, have

the good grace to observe the customary table

manners. Making up your own is tanamount to

regurgetating on the Host(no pun intended).

Keep it simple Sally.

Thank you for that, Elijah P. The Jewish concept of the Mashiach (as distinct from God's physical offspring, which is a pagan concept) is a subject I'd like to see taken seriously on this page.

And now would somebody please sneak into CCNL's computer and clear the memory so he will stop posting -- or is that pasting -- the same lengthy response to every question....

If we are honest with ourselves we will recognize that Jesus of Nazareth lived as a pious Jew and died as a pious Jew. He was converted several hundred years after his death into the incarnation of the Jewish Deity. This would have completely shocked his basic Judaic conception of ineffable completely incorporeal Deity. It would have further shocked him to imagine that his followers would be convinced they were drinking his blood. In fact, he would have been shocked that his followers were being encouraged to drink any blood at all, as that is completely in contradiction to Jewish law as he would have understood it. In addition, the transformation of any material substance into the Deity would have seemed to him bizarre indeed.

Let us not ask what the historical Jesus would have thought of communion.

Oh please, stop this delusion. This debate is a total nonsense. Religion teaches ignorance, arrogance, division, and hate amongst other things. Those who are not allowed to take communion wake up, it does not matter and who cares. Move on and learn the atrocities the bible teaches and lift the veil of ignorance from your eyes. The world would be a much better place without religion. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

So a 'former priest' is now telling us to hang loose with the teachings of the Church? Thanks anyway, Johnny boy, but I think I'll hang with the Pope. The sacrament of the Eucharest belongs ONLY to Catholics who are in a state of grace - - not to the Sallys of the world who just want to hang with the crowd.

any religion which contains hypocritical hatred,immoral deception,sexual advance under the cover of God shall be banned as "cult" or shall be taxed as " non-religious community nuisance property".
I am a born-again bisexual man who practice a real christianity for my own betterness.
However, Bible teaches a big theme with many little barbs. If you miss what the big picture is telling,then, you will spend most of your christian life picking on little speckles in other people(specifically non-believers).
Buddism vs Christianity = self-betterness vs phoney self-righteousness !
We need Religious Reform! no religion shall contain a hatred toward non-believers!

Fr. Crossan makes an excellent case about the emotional disposition one should have to receive communion. But what about the rational disposition? I don't mean anything so fussy as understanding the theology of transubstantiation. Christ didn't come to save professors. But I do mean that one should believe that the eucharist is what the church says it is, the body and blood of Christ. If Fr. Crossan means to imply that publicly committing oneself to non-violent justice and living "like" Christ is the same thing, I'm not sure I agree. I have many atheist friends whose sense of justice I admire greatly, and whom I welcome at my table, and whom, I'm sure, Christ would welcome at his table. But there must be some spiritual sense at least that Christ is our savior. Even the good thief on the cross, who surely had little churchin', did have, I think, the belief that Jesus was the Christ come to save mankind. I'm not big on refusing communion to anyone, but Paul does tell us that taking communion when we don't believe can compound our sin. So the spirit is extremely important, yes, but there is some role for the church to supply sound doctrine, and to imply that it's optional, if Fr. Crossan in any way meant to imply that, troubles me. Red herrings, always watch for red herrings.

The historical-critical method employed by Crossan and others does not explain the peace and perception of the Sacred that I experience with Christ, and that others have been reporting for 20 centuries.

Auto-suggestion and a vivid imagination are another explanation but they doesn't explain why, in my case, it started all of a sudden, intensely and enduring for years, after a specific Christian event.

I don't experience myself as brain damaged, epileptic, etc. either.

...

Regarding,communion, what is confusing is that if one accepts that one must be reconciled to God and to one's Christian brother or sister prior to participating, then it would seem that Christians and Catholics are not celebrating it as instructed. Are we supposed to believe that we have succesfully reconciled with each other within Catholicsm or Christianity prior to each celebration?

Furthermore, if one believes that individual acts of charity are not sufficient to cure structural injustice, then one's participation in the Eucharist is questionable specially if one is living with perhaps more than what is most basically needed, while others don't have enough or are dying.

I believe Christ is the Eucharistic host even after the celebration is over, but it's hard to believe that he could be too happy about what is happening between us.

All this energy about whether Ms. Quinn should have had crackers and wine. Aren't there more important things to address?
People suffer from lack of medical care in this country and losing their home to foreclosure, the infrastructure is not being maintained, college is being priced out of reach of many, while "Christian" groups elect "conservative" politicians who cut taxes for the wealthy, cut services for the poor, go to war for oil, refuse to regulate shady business practices, and refuse to address global warming because they are afraid that they will give up more than developing countries (the "lets all drive off the cliff together" strategy).
I think Jesus would spend less time on crackers and wine and more time helping people, but he would probably be deported by the "conservative Christian" Republican administration.

1 Corinthinians 11 fails the historic test of attestations and stratums of many contemporary historic Jesus and NT exegetes:

e.g.

John Dominic Crossan

"In Crossan's view, this is the third example of a plurally attested complex from the first stratum which, although summarizing "principles or practices, themes or emphases, of the historical Jesus, stem not from him but from the liturgical creativity of the early communities" [Historical Jesus, 360]. (The other examples were 013 Two As One and 120 The Lords Prayer.)

Crossan [Historical Jesus, 360-67] proposes five major stages in the development of this complex:

1. The general anthropology of eating and the more specific historical customs of Greco-Roman commensality: and specifically the two-part structure (deipnon then symposion) of the Greco-Roman formal meal.

2. Open commensality practiced by Jesus and his followers as an expression of radical social egalitarianism.

3. A ritual meal within the early Jesus communities, such as those prescribed in Didache 10 and 9, with no paschal imagery, no Last Supper tradition, and no connection with the death of Jesus.

4. The pre-Pauline tradition of the Last Supper during which Jesus institutes the eucharistic ritual and links the bread and wine to his body and blood.

5. Introduction of Passover character as part of a re-working of the Last Supper tradition by Mark. "

Paula Fredriksen

"Fredriksen [Jesus of Nazareth, 117-119] accepts the Passover character of the event and places the actions of Jesus in the context of messianic meals in his own ministry and at Qumran. When discussing the final days in Jerusalem (page 252), she assumes the basic historicity of the last supper narrative as a self-conscious final meal in which Jesus spoke of his impending death saying the words over the bread and cup."

Jesus Seminar - the following passages were judged to be probably not or definitely not from the historical Jesus:

Sayings of Jesus

1 Cor 11:23-25

Mark 14:25

Mark 14:22-25

Matt 26:29

Matt 26:26-29

Matt 26:28c

Luke 22:16,18

Luke 22:15-20

Did 9:4

Did 9:1-4

John 6:51-58

Passion Narrative

1 Cor 11:23-26

Mark 14:22-26

Matt 26:26-30

Luke 22:14-20

John 6:26-70

Gerd Lüdemann

"Luedemann [Jesus, 94-97] concludes that the assymetrical forms cited in 1 Cor 11 are older than the parallel forms of the sayings over the bread and cup in Mark. He also suggests that the eschatological prospect entertained by Jesus is a later addition, and notes that it has nothing to do with the gift of bread and wine. On the other hand, Luedemann notes that the Pauline text reflects a later development than Mark with its twofold command for repetition of the supper ritual in memory of Jesus. In the end, Luedemann decides that the differences between Mark and Paul are small enough for him to use the two accounts in determining both the content of the final meal and the ways in which the supper was understood by early Christians.

At the same time, Luedemann concludes that the portrayal of Jesus celebrating such a ritual on the night before his death is not historical. He is clear that there is "no generic relationship" between any actual final meal and the Lord's Supper understood in cultic terms. He also denies the Passover character of the supper as a Markan creation. Like Meier (below), Luedemann does accept the saying (Mark 14:25) about drinking wine in the kingdom of God as authentic. He concludes: (this saying) "hardly came into being in the early community, for in it Jesus does not exercise any special function for believers at the festal meal in heaven which is imminent. Only Jesus' expectation of a the future kingdom of God stands at the centre, not Jesus as saviour, judge or intercessor."

John P. Meier

"When discussing the saying on Drinking Wine in the Kingdom of God (Mark 14:25, Meier [Marginal Jew II,302] notes that "the historicity of a final farewell meal held by Jesus with his disciples is generally accepted by scholars across the spectrum, since its existence is supported by both the criterion of multiple attestation and the criterion of coherence."

Retrieved from "http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/016_"

Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 instructs on the method of taking communion. He criticized those who took it just as a meal instead of in remembrance of the death and resurrection of Christ. First he quotes Jesus' words when Jesus presided over the last supper: ""This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me. . ., This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

Paul then states:

"For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."

Thus, those who administer communion should not give it to someone who with reasonable certainty does not follow the above procedure of Paul. A person who receives communion is first obliged to examine himself or herself before eating of the bread and drinking of the cup, and further is obliged to recognize the body of the Lord while doing so, as otherwise he or she drinks judgment upon himself or herself.

Of course the person administering communion is not a mind reader. Most of the time he's not going to be able to tell what the person taking communion is really thinking. But if the person taking communion is an avowed atheist or otherwise makes it plain that he or she is taking communion for improper purposes, then they are properly denied communion in accordance with the teaching of 1 Corinthians 11.

Nonsense, Jesus would deny the Eucharist to no one. It is a symbol of our oneness with God and the rejection of sacrifice as a means to serve God.

Living like Jesus is not trying to copy His life, rather He was an example for us to be ourselves, no matter the consequence. Jesus was no lamb going to the slaughter, rather He was a a true warrior unwilling to deny his true Self. God don't make no junk, our challenge is to be who we were born to be and not be distracted or persuaded or even tortured into being someone else.

Christ excludes no one, that is what churches do.

By Nicaea the authoritarians had begun to change the requirement from loving Christ, to having the 'correct' relationship to Him, back to the Pharisees and Sadducees, back to the priests. The Reformation brought back a small amount of diversity, but clearly the arguments about theology and the territorial squabbling have nothing to do with Christ.

Christ brought a message of inclusion, the Apostles, just men and women, began arguing (Paul called Peter a hypocrite) and 2000 years later men are still trying to understand the conditions necessary for unconditional love. Conditional love can be withheld by priests, ministers and so on, unconditional love is just part of the ground of our Being. The Eucharist is the symbol of an unbreakable communion.

Chirst himself all are welcome to the table of my father done with the debate now?

What does Professor JD Crossan and many other religious historians conclude about the historic reliability of said Catholic foundation: (Think ill of Crossan’s work if you want but he has done his homework as shown by the content of the books he has written-

See www.amazon.com for a compilation. Ditto for Schillebeeckx)

John 14: 26 not historic ( 62-. Spirit under Trial: (1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt
10:19-20; (2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15; (3) John 14:26.)

Matt 16: 18-19 not historic (73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark
8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.)

1 Timothy- not written by St. Paul (See Crossan’s “In Search of Paul”, Harper, San
Francisco, 2004, p.105)

2 Peter 1:20

Since Schillebeeckx basically ruled out prophecies by concluding God does not know
the future, one can rule out the infallible nature of this verse.

Also from Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use in claiming infallibility plus the verse is not from Jesus or Peter but some possible remembrance of a scribe.

From another source:
Also think about the logic (or lack thereof).
“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would your
anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani (sp?)
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran”

more “logic”?
“I believe there is One God Jehovah because He is revealed in the infallible
Bible. I believe the Bible is infallible because it is the Word of the One God Jehovah.”
Again, this what some leading experts are saying about the foundations of infallibility.

As I have noted before, I find it disturbing that the Vatican remains silent concerning the conclusions of Crossan and Schillebeeckx.

Sally Quinn, by her own admission, does not believe in God and therefore could not believe in Jesus Christ. Since she has no intention in following in Christ's footsteps, in believing in his teachings, in perhaps dying for him, then she has no business taking Communion.

What she did insults Catholics, believers, Christians, the Russert family and most importantly, the memory of Tim Russert, whom she purportedly was there to honor. It was bad enough she went to Communion, it was worse for her to use it as the basis for an article for her own self aggrandizement.

Sally Quinn needs to disappear from the public eye, once and for all.

thank you Mr. Crossan for clarifying the difference
between rationalistic obedience and true, open, and unbiased understanding...unfortunately, the amount of people blogging here who think they are righteous enough to insult others in the name of their god shows us that the point has been, as of yet, unreceived. where is the humility in insulting others for exploring and thinking critically about religious life, thought and experience? all sages questioned.

Arianrhod's Son:

It is true that people make of the 'book' whatever they like and use it against others for all kinds of reasons, emphasizing what may be convenient and omitting what may not.

Such for example is the case with the 2 versions of the Sermon of the Mount (Matthew and Luke -- "Blessed are the poor..."). Some spiritualize it altogether and forget 'distributive justice' arguing that wealth is just fine regardless of Jesus' condemnation of it according to Luke and Mark. Others reduce it to only material poverty, omitting spiritual poverty, as if poverty was just a logistics problem or egotism not the deepest sin. Seems that even Matthew and Luke had somewhat different readings.

Maybe Jesus wanted all of to consider things just a little more deeply each time and unlike you, I believe He is accomplishing it, notwithstanding resistance everywhere.

This thread explains why I have nothing to do with the book, whatsoever. You folks make of it whatever you like, one way and the other, and use it against people for the flimsiest of reasons (talk about ethics; hypocrisy is more like it). Poor old Yeshua. He did his best and look where it got all of you.

--Continuation of my reflection in 2 previous posts--

Even so, I could not participate in the Eucharist if I did not believe it was Jesus Christ or if I had not examined my conscience as best as I could and asked for His forgiveness.

I could not do this anymore than I could hurt someone and then invite him or her for supper, without recognizing or repenting from my sin and seeking reconciliation first.

It would be utter hypocrisy if I did.

That is why the Catholic church, with all of its shortcomings, has steps to the Sacraments.

Even the Amazonian indigenous people have steps prior to participation in their encounters with Mystery. They do not approach it lightly.

Taken from http://www2.dsu.nodak.edu/users/dmeier/Holocaust/hitler.html

As a young boy, Hitler attended school in a Catholic Benedictine Monastery. The ancient monastery was decorated with carved stones and woodwork that included several swastikas.

Hitler would say the solemn pageantry of the high mass and other Catholic ceremonies was quite intoxicating and left a very deep impression. As a young boy he idolized the priests and for two years seriously considered becoming a priest himself. He especially admired the Abbot in charge, who RULED his black-robbed monks with SUPREME AUTHORITY.

***

The young Hitler just probably copied his DICTATORIAL kind of leadership from this Catholic Benedictine School.

For sure Hitler would have thought he is holy for taking part in EATING "HOLY" BISCUITS. Never mind teaching him about the true BREAD OF LIFE, the BIBLE which says :

"And I will bless them that bless thee (Jewish people), and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 12:3)

For having NOT "eaten" the TRUE bread of life, but replaced it instead with BISCUITS, the man became a monster who was responsible for the death of millions of lives.

THE STUPIDITY CONTINUES TO THIS DAY.

Of course Jesus was Catholic. Do you think he started the Hindu religion when he said, "upon this rock I will build my church"

Have we no interest in the meaning of words? Was he Lutheran when he said, "eat my flesh" and now the don't even follow his wishes.

God started a Church to exist until the end of time. It is the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

God love you.

I welcome your acceptance of Quinn’s participation, but I think it’s fair to say that such acceptance is not the position of the Church. I would not have participated, because I would have felt like an intruder.

I have a distinctly uncomfortable feeling attending worship services of any kind – Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal, whatever – where I feel like an observer rather than a participant. It makes me feel guilty somehow, watching other people go about sacred business in ways unfamiliar to me. I know that I would be perfectly welcome in a Catholic church, and my presence appreciated, but even though I would want to join fellow Christians in worship, the Eucharist is the central act, and in that I would be excluded. I would be probably be welcomed at a mosque, but not being a Muslim, I would be more of a spectator, and I don’t consider worship an appropriate spectator activity.

I’m a Baptist, and we used to be like that, too. There used to be Baptist churches, and in certain rural areas of the South may still be, where before communion was observed, everyone who was not a member in good standing of that particular congregation would be asked to leave. No known sinners were allowed.

How much better the example told of by a Scottish writer – it may have been John Baillie – of a woman of the streets who found her way into a church and sat in a dark, unobtrusive spot. Communion was passed around, and she refused, but an old gentleman sitting near told her, “Take it, lassie. It’s for you.”

I welcome your acceptance of Quinn’s participation, but I think it’s fair to say that such acceptance is not the position of the Church. I would not have participated, because I would have felt like an intruder.

I have a distinctly uncomfortable feeling attending worship services of any kind – Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal, whatever – where I feel like an observer rather than a participant. It makes me feel guilty somehow, watching other people go about sacred business in ways unfamiliar to me. I know that I would be perfectly welcome in a Catholic church, and my presence appreciated, but even though I would want to join fellow Christians in worship, the Eucharist is the central act, and in that I would be excluded. I would be probably be welcomed at a mosque, but not being a Muslim, I would be more of a spectator, and I don’t consider worship an appropriate spectator activity.

I’m a Baptist, and we used to be like that, too. There used to be Baptist churches, and in certain rural areas of the South may still be, where before communion was observed, everyone who was not a member in good standing of that particular congregation would be asked to leave. No known sinners were allowed.

How much better the example told of by a Scottish writer – it may have been John Baillie – of a woman of the streets who found her way into a church and sat in a dark, unobtrusive spot. Communion was passed around, and she refused, but an old gentleman sitting near told her, “Take it, lassie. It’s for you.”

I welcome your acceptance of Quinn’s participation, but I think it’s fair to say that such acceptance is not the position of the Church. I would not have participated, because I would have felt like an intruder.

I have a distinctly uncomfortable feeling attending worship services of any kind – Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal, whatever – where I feel like an observer rather than a participant. It makes me feel guilty somehow, watching other people go about sacred business in ways unfamiliar to me. I know that I would be perfectly welcome in a Catholic church, and my presence appreciated, but even though I would want to join fellow Christians in worship, the Eucharist is the central act, and in that I would be excluded. I would be probably be welcomed at a mosque, but not being a Muslim, I would be more of a spectator, and I don’t consider worship an appropriate spectator activity.

I’m a Baptist, and we used to be like that, too. There used to be Baptist churches, and in certain rural areas of the South may still be, where before communion was observed, everyone who was not a member in good standing of that particular congregation would be asked to leave. No known sinners were allowed.

How much better the example told of by a Scottish writer – it may have been John Baillie – of a woman of the streets who found her way into a church and sat in a dark, unobtrusive spot. Communion was passed around, and she refused, but an old gentleman sitting near told her, “Take it, lassie. It’s for you.”

As per many contemporary historic Jesus and NT exegetes:

Matt 16: 18-19 is not historic (73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark
8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.)

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/073_Who_is_Jesus%3F

i.e. #1 the "binding" in Heaven passage is an embellishment by said authors of the NT.

i.e. #2 The simple preacher man's teachings to include the 70% added by P, M, M, L and J's as embellishments serve as the basis for living a good life but there are other teachings of comparable strengths save Islam which is nothing more than a warmongering, plagiarized version of the OT, NT and other ancient rules.

i.e. #3 An act of contrition with repentance and life style changes by anyone of any faith or even no faith should be sufficient for soul cleansing.

i.e. #4 Sally Quinn before receiving the symbolic low calorie sometimes stale wafer made an act of contrition and promised to make any life style changes required for cleansing of her spirit.

1 Timothy- not written by St. Paul (See Crossan’s “In Search of Paul”, Harper, San
Francisco, 2004, p.105)

See also earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Dr. Crossan then adds: "That is, of course, an on-going lifelong process and it is precisely such eucharistic participation that initiates, continues, and consummates it."

So then anyone who is curious about Christ should participate in the Eucharist?

In a sense, I understand his argument. By participating, the person will get to know Christ. That the person is in a state of sin might, in a sense, be irrelevant to Christ's interest in Communing with the person, since that is precisely what He wants to redeem the person from. That a person is curious about Christ, or merely wants to share a memory of love with a departed one, in a sense, grace.

Thus Dr. Crossan's argument may be pondered further.

Initially, Dr. Crossan defends Ms. Quinn's right to participate in the Eucharist: " Sally, and only Sally, can say whether she should or should not...From how she herself described it, my own answer is an emphatic yes."

At the end he paradoxically concludes: "In general: who should accept the eucharistic ritual? Those and only those who are intentionally, self-consciously, and publicly committing themselves to live like Jesus and, if unfortunately ever necessary, to die like Jesus."

Is Dr. Crossan thus suggesting that this is what Sally Quinn has done, that she has committed herself to dying for Christ? Is he suggesting that he knows this from what she has declared?

A person not in the state of grace who receives Holy Communion commits sacrilege. Which is not good for that persons soul. An examination of conscience before Communion must have no Mortal sins not forgiven in Holy Confession before receiving the Host. In most cases the people we are discussing have a high degree of intellect. Most are congressman. There is no excuse for them to use I didnt know phylosophy approach. Stupidity is not a good excuse either. At the last supper Judas most likely received the consecrated bread. He didnt have this pre catachism knowledge we have now. But even then, he committed sacriledge. But just remember, Jesus doesnt forget.

Thank you for your common sense commentary. Sadly, we have become a church of men who value rules over the message that Jesus left us - love one another, as I have loved you.

What a classic and classically-confused "Sixties" article on a Catholic topic. I'll give just one example of the classical confusion rampant in the article. "...sacraments belong to Christ rather even than to Christianity and certainly to Christianity rather than just to Roman Catholicism..." And the writer was a Catholic priest at one time? Apparently, he's still wearing his "do-your-own-Catholic-thing" thinking cap. The religious and social damage he and his like did to the generations they were supposed to religiously educate was and is still staggering. It makes one wonder what the writer thinks Jesus Christ meant when He said to Peter, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven..."[Mt16:19].

I agree with Dave (JULY 13, 2008 6:22 AM). My wife is Catholic, I am not; so I attend Mass, but do not partake of Holy Communion. The Catholic Church has expressly defined who should not be receiving Communion, and that includes those who have not Confessed.

The Catholic Church has the right to define their rules and apply them.

As a Christian Buddhist it astounds me that churches continue to be EXCLUSIVE rather than INCLUSIVE.

I'm sure Jesus and God will accept anyone to their table at any time, any place.

"Would Jesus refuse Communion?"
Excuse me,
Jesus wasn't a Catholic.
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but sometimes an Emeritus Professor can overlook such mundane things.
The assumption here is that the Catholic interpretation of sin and forgiveness has the same validity as direct forgiveness from the Son of God.

I call that goddam blasphemous.

"Those and only those who are intentionally, self-consciously, and publicly committing themselves to live like Jesus and, if unfortunately ever necessary, to die like Jesus."

Sounds like those qualified to participate in the ritual are few and far between.

My bet is that Jesus would not have to deny communion for others. Rather, I believe he would reject most every incarnation of the church as it exists today. The churches that resemble his consist of ascetics who do not share much with society, and those churches well integrated with society tend to be materialistic and do little to challenge the greedy and selfish lives we lead.

To Anonymous:

This statement of yours is not factually true:

"I find it most ironic that the only blogger Professor John Dominic Crossan has ever responded to is an ATHEIST JEW ..."

On threads that involve me I answer always to direct or indirect questions of fact that concern what I have said or written. Check, for example, my response to Farnaz earlier in tbis very thread.

Extraordinary -- a brilliant and eloquent statement about the difference between mindful commitment and mindless participation in ritual. The problem, I think, is that religious and political agencies in power fear true mindfulness; their security is temporal, and they feel it depends on mindless obedience and loyalty. The problem with mindfulness, in their view, is that it does not guarantee loyalty to them.

Panelist Timothy Shriver is faithful to the Catholic Church, but he is not a religious scholar who can defend the Church from a theological perspective.

If the idea is to promote interfaith dialogue is having strong critics of the Catholic Church from within, which only adds fuel to the longstanding fire of anti-Catholicism, the way to go?

Is it sheer coincidence that the only two Catholics representing the Catholic Church on this panel presently are critics of the Catholic Church?

Is the whole idea to present what is wrong with the Catholic Church from insider

We do not read Muslim panelists write against Islam, Jewish panelists write against Judaism or any other panelist write against their own religions or Christian denominations.

I find it most ironic that the only blogger Professor John Dominic Crossan has ever responded to is an ATHEIST JEW, who doesn't believe Jesus ever existed and the Quran is a more reliable Scripture than the New Testament!

To followup on my below post, the following is taken from the very inside cover of "Today's Missal." Numerous copies are found in every pew of any Catholic church. Ms. Quinn (and Prof. Crossan) are you reading?

For all, Prof. Crossan is entitled to his opinion but he does not set conditions. The Magisterium does. (1 Tim " ..... the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth!"). Otherwise, CHAOS! No thanks!

"Guidelines for the reception of (Catholic) communion."

"For our fellow Christians"

"We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharest as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the HOLY SPIRIT in this Eucharest will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with CHRIST'S pray for us (my emphasis)***"THAT THEY MAY ALL BE ONE"*** (John 17:21).

Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are (my emphasis) ***NOT ADMITTED TO HOLY COMMUNION.*** Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians (Ms. Quinn!!!) ****requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and provisions of canon law (canon 844-4).**** Members of the Orthodox churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these churches (canon 844-3)."

"For non Christians"

"We also welcome to this celebration those who do not share our faith in JESUS CHRIST. While we cannot admit them to Holy Communion, we ask them to offer their prayers for peace and the unity of the human family."

For all ........ Prof. Crossan and I don't set the conditions. The Magisterium does.

Please respect my faith as I do your's.

I am Roman Catholic (from the "craddle).

I respect your faith. Please respect mine.

When I have (and will) attend Baptist, Jewish, Lutheran etc. services, I play by your rules.

When you attend Catholic services, please play by ours. (Wedding? Funeral? Doesn't matter).

Please do *NOT* attend Catholic Holy Communion/Eucharest unless (Ms. Quinn, are you reading?):

1. You have accepted JESUS CHRIST as lord and saviour.

2. You have received Trinitarian Baptism. ("I
Baptise thee in the name of the FATHER, the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT, Amen" using water.

3. You have been properly catechised as I was in grades K thru 8. Adult wishing to convert? Attend RCIA ("Rite of Christian initiation for adults" at a local Catholic church). Thereafter, "swim the Tiber" and formerly be accepted into the Catholic church. This is quite frequently .... but not always ..... done on the Easter vigil.

4. Partake in the sacrament of Reconcilliation ....... get into the confessional before receiving Communion. Sorry ...... ain't no short cuts!

5. Partake in Catholic Communion. If numbers 1 - 4 above are missing, please do *NOT* partake in Catholic communion.

Again, I respect YOUR faith. Please respect mine.

Prof. Crossan is entitled to his opinions BUT HE DOES NOT SET THE DOCTRINE OR CONDITIONS, nor do I.

The above are set by the Magisterium (teaching authority of the Pope and Bishops) of which Prof. Crossan and I are not members.

Reasonable not hateful:

Paul raised the words and deeds of Jesus from the dead and forgotten!! Paul's embellished words nor history nor God raised the physical Jesus from the dead. Read Paul's epistles carefully e.g. 1 Cor 15: 44-45.

As noted by Pope John Paul II and St. Aquinas Heaven is a spirit state i.e. there can be no bones there or bodies to include the theological glorified body.

"In three controversial Wednesday Audiences, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him."
http://eternal-word.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM

So where are the bones? As per Professor Crossan's analyses in his many books, the body of Jesus very possibly would have ended up in the mass graves of the crucified, eaten by wild dogs, in a shallow grave covered with lime, or under a pile of stones.

Actually Professor Crossan spends little time analyzing the question about glorified bodies since the physical Ascension, according to his analyses and those of many Catholic universitiy theologians, did not take place nor did the apparitions. See his book, The Historical Jesus.

In his book, In Search of Paul p. 343, Crossan did address 1 Cor 15: 44-45, "When buried it is the physical body, when it is raised it will be the spiritual body. There is of course the physical body so there has to be a spiritual body. The first man Adam was a created living being but the last Adam is the life-giving Spirit. "

Contemporary NT exegetes have not been the only ones to make commentary about the deposition of Jesus' body.

To wit:

According to Reimarus as referenced in R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,

"Reimarus (1774-1779 publications) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

I'm an Orthodox Christian. I've always found the topic of who can and can't receive communion interesting. In the ancient Christian church of the 1st and 2nd century (around the times of the Apostles), there was a common practice as pertains to taking part in the Eucharist. If I lived in one part of Christendom (Damascus for example)and was traveling to another part (Jerusalem for example), there would be certain requirements in order for me to partake. 1) I'd have to have a letter from the Bishop in my hometown addressed to the Bishop in the town I was visiting saying that I was a Christian and I had the blessing to take communion. 2) I'd have to have 3 people in the new community who new me in my old community vouch for me and tell the Bishop about my life in my old town. 3) I'd have to live among the Christians in the new town for three years and live a decent Christian life.

And this is the way it was throughout all of Christendom at that time.So there is Apostolic prescedent for the idea of the priests withholding communion under certain circumstances.

Reasonable not hateful:

Tis obvious you have no desire to search for the truth. At least now you know where to find it.

I just hope that hijacking and desecrating our religious symbols will sate your religious bigotry but if history is any guide it will only whet it.

The bigger question though is why even start down the road of religious bigotry and hatred? Hasn't history shown clearly at this point that the only thing that lies at its end are the bones of history's most evil men atop the mountains of bones of their victims?

what sally did was a sin, would she go into a mosque without her head covered and start praying with the boys, probably not, she would be hurt...she should be gratefull Catholics are not into violence...
there is a feeling "on faith" is out to destroy organized religion in favor of new messiahs like obama...
time for the libs on "on faith" to have some respect for the religions they are covering...

what sally did was a sin, would she go into a mosque without her head covered and start praying with the boys, probably not, she would be hurt...she should be gratefull Catholics are not into violence...
there is a feeling "on faith" is out to destroy organized religion in favor of new messiahs like obama...
time for the libs on "on faith" to have some respect for the religions they are covering...

Reasonable Not Hateful:

In rereading my previous post to you, I see I may have been a little confusing. The Sadducees were Jews. However, they grew increasingly unpopular in the Jewish world. Their commitment to a priestly caste went to a certain elitism that the Pharisees were anxious to purge from Judaism. Of course, all of what we know of the Sadducees comes from the Pharisees, as we have no Sadducee writings, and the sect seems to have vanished after 70 A.D., a signal year. It does appear they were open to Hellenization, or at least to some aspects of Greek culture, a great source of contention among the Pharisees, who were horrified by the amorality they saw among the Greeks, the babarity, the cruelty of the Romans.

It was later concluded by the Talmudists that humanity needs the Greeks, for beauty, science. But Hebrews must always know first that justice is foundational for humanity (Judaism doesn't radically separate justice from mercy; justice is merciful). Truth is not beauty, nor is beauty truth.

Dear Fr. Crossan,

Thank you very much for answering my question.

Farnaz

Reasonable Not Hateful:

If the Jesus Seminarians are the Pharisees of your era, you are fortunate indeed. The Pharisees wrote the Talmud. On the Pharisees, see Catholic theologian Rosemary Reuther, "Faith and Fratricide." Since no Pharisees would have made the statements ascribed to them in the NT, the discourse being so inconsistent with the Judaism of the period, it has recently been suggested that the NT redactors were referring to the Sadducees. Some, not all, of what is attributed to the Pharisees, could have been uttered by some Sadducees, who, for example, wished to maintain a priestly caste of sorts. The Pharisees emphatically did not. See Wikepedia on Hillel, the Tannai'm, etc.

The Tannai'm were remarkable men. As new men would join their ranks, if they showed more brilliance than others, those others, made way for them, deferred to them, learned from them. Akiva, whose teachers, once they saw he had surpassed him, became his students. This is not to say that egos weren't bruised along the way. We know they were. Normative Judaism had no saints. Still, I would give a great deal to be involved in a "seminar" such as those Pharisees created. Ego which permeates most discussions, politics which corrupts so many scholarly enterprises, is everywhere evident in religious institutions, in interfaith communication, and in whatever this blog is supposed to be.

It is thru that stupid ritual that Catholicism was able to fool much of the world and led them to believe that the power is in the BISCUIT and NOT in the word of God, the BIBLE. Keeping them from having the Bible would SEAL their authority over the ignorant people. It is no wonder then that for many centuries, the Bible was inaccessible to the people.

Ignorance by the people of the Bible was the reason why Catholicism was able to act like LITTLE GODS themselves, making RULES and DOGMAS saying that these rules are from God. They can easily DUPE any person once that person believes that there is power in that biscuit when there is really NONE. They have TRANSFORMED the metaphor of Jesus to be an INSTRUMENT to PROPAGATE IGNORANCE.

***

It's not the intention of God or Jesus Christ that people will worship biscuits or treat them as holy. As you know, Christ always speaks in metaphor.

The Bread of Life is always and has always been the Word of God, the Bible.

It's very funny that Catholicism ban the distribution of the Bible in it's long history but worship the biscuit.

Ms. Quinn taking the communion (it's not holy) is like a lost person wanting to take part to a mad ritual and the mad people getting angry because somebody who's not totally mad is taking it.

Let the madness continue, the more you eat the biscuit, the more holy you think you are.

NOBODY GOES TO HEAVEN BECAUSE OF EATING BISCUITS.

Just open the Bible and be filled with it, the true bread of God.

STUPIDITY, STUPIDITY, STUPIDITY. When will stupidity be out of religion?

A qoute from Jose Rizal:

"Oh what blindness!! What Lack Of Undersatnding!!"

" Consider well that kind of religion that they are teaching you. See whether it is the will of the God or according to the teachings of Christ that the poor be succored and those who suffer alleviated. Consider what they are preaching to you, the object of the sermon, what is behind the masses, novenas, rosaries, scapularies, images, miracles, candles, belts, etc., etc.; which they daily keep before your minds; ears and eyes; jostling, shouting, and coaxing, INVESTIGATE whence they came and WHETHER THEY GO and then compare that religion with the pure religion of Christ and SEE whether the PRETENDED OBSERVANCE of the life of Christ does not remind of the fat milk cow or the fattened pig, which is encouraged to grow fat not through love of the animal, but for grossly mercenary motives. "

It´s time to leave alone the ¨wounded¨ Cathotics who think they have god in their own little box. They´re not going to change. My solution is when one goes to a Catholic church walk out during Communion turning one´s back to both the Priest and the congregation so they won´t be offened by the ¨non-saved¨ in their presence. Their table is not Christ´s table or it would be open to all like Christ is and like the example he taught us.

If they want to torture their own with manipulative guilt and exclusion, so be it. Just keep this in mind as their political agenda next time you think about voting for a Catholic.

It is thru that stupid ritual that Catholicism was able to fool much of the world and led them to believe that the power is in the BISCUIT and NOT IN THE WORD OF GOD, THE BIBLE.

***

It's not the intention of God or Jesus Christ that people will worship biscuits or treat them as holy. As you know, Christ always speaks in metaphor.

The Bread of Life is always and has always been the Word of God, the Bible.

It's very funny that Catholicism ban the distribution of the Bible in it's long history but worship the biscuit.

Ms. Quinn taking the communion (it's not holy) is like a lost person wanting to take part to a mad ritual and the mad people getting angry because somebody who's not totally mad is taking it.

Let the madness continue, the more you eat the biscuit, the more holy you think you are.

NOBODY GOES TO HEAVEN BECAUSE OF EATING BISCUITS.

Just open the Bible and be filled with it, the true bread of God.

STUPIDITY, STUPIDITY, STUPIDITY. When will stupidity be out of religion?

A qoute from Jose Rizal:

"Oh what blindness!! What Lack Of Undersatnding!!"

" Consider well that kind of religion that they are teaching you. See whether it is the will of the God or according to the teachings of Christ that the poor be succored and those who suffer alleviated. Consider what they are preaching to you, the object of the sermon, what is behind the masses, novenas, rosaries, scapularies, images, miracles, candles, belts, etc., etc.; which they daily keep before your minds; ears and eyes; jostling, shouting, and coaxing, INVESTIGATE whence they came and WHETHER THEY GO and then compare that religion with the pure religion of Christ and SEE whether the PRETENDED OBSERVANCE of the life of Christ does not remind of the fat milk cow or the fattened pig, which is encouraged to grow fat not through love of the animal, but for grossly mercenary motives. "

***

It is thru that stupid ritual that Catholicism was able to fool much of the world and led them to believe that the power is in the BISCUIT and NOT IN THE WORD OF GOD, THE BIBLE.

i couldn't have said better myself..thankyou

CCNL:

You can post on these hacks all you want. The point is, THEY WERE NOT THERE. None of us were. You can do some analysis on those times, but in the end you have to read the gospels and Paul's writings and take them on face value or not. Crossan has NO IDEA about Jesus' body- speculating that his body was torn apart by the dogs.

Generally, I don't reply anymore to your drivel but I could not help myself this time. You are predicable in your posts and are no better than the rest of the militant atheists that post around here.
Even Mr Mark avoids responding to you because you are a "one trick pony" when it comes to this Jesus Seminar crapola.

I like what I found on the web about the Jesus Seminar.....

"The Jesus Seminarians are the Pharisees and Sadducees of our present generation. They seek to destroy the Gospel, the Church, and the Truth about Jesus. They want His authority over our lives to be diminished, and they desire that their own intellect and opinions be exalted above anything that is reported about Jesus in the Gospels"

This is them and YOU, wrapped all into one paragraph. Jesus is the Messiah- you can accept him or reject him, its your choice, dude.

Your knee will bow to him, but will it because you want to, or have to?

Reasonable not hateful:

Professor Crossan and his fellow historical Jesus and NT exegetes have reviewed the available history about first to third century Palestine. By doing this they were able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

What they found was not some deity but a simple preacher man from peasant stock who learned well from the likes of John the Baptist. The life of said preacher man, as per these exegetes was significantly embellished and enhanced for a lot of reasons by the likes of very historical Paul and four other scribes whose historical backgrounds are basically unknown. Whomever they were, they were more fiction writers than historians.

If you want to debate said exegetes, pitting your knowledge and rational thinking to theirs, peruse the following references:

1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm -- the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject.

2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication
30-60 CE Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter

3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html--"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html

8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm

9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

10. 7. The Gnostic Jesus
(Part One in a Two-Part Series on Ancient and Modern Gnosticism)
by Douglas Groothuis: equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm

11. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2

12. The Jesus Database- newer site:
wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=Jesus_Database

13. Jesus Database with the example of Supper and Eucharist:
faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb016.html

14. Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

15. The Journal of Higher Criticism with links to articles on the Historical Jesus:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

16. The Greek New Testament: laparola.net/greco/

17. Diseases in the Bible:
etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-08022006-125807/unrestricted/02dissertation.pdf
18. Religion on Line (6000 articles on the history of religion, churches, theologies,
theologians, ethics, etc.
religion-online.org/

19. The Jesus Seminarians and their search for NT authenticity:
mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

20. The New Testament Gateway - Internet NT ntgateway.com/

21. Writing the New Testament- existing copies, oral tradition etc.
ntgateway.com/

22. The Search for the Historic Jesus by the Jesus Seminarians:
members.aol.com/DrSwiney/seminar.html

23. Jesus Decoded by Msgr. Francis J. Maniscalco (Da Vinci Code review)jesusdecoded.com/introduction.php

24. JD Crossan's scriptural references for his book the Historical Jesus separted into time periods: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

25. JD Crossan's conclusions about the authencity of most of the NT based on the above plus the conclusions of other NT exegetes in the last 200 years:
faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

26. Common Sayings from Thomas's Gospel and the Q Gospel: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf

27. Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by title with the complete translated work in English :earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

28. Luke and Josephus- was there a connection?
infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

29. NT and beyond time line:
pbs.org/empires/peterandpaul/history/timeline/

30. St. Paul's Time line with discussion of important events:
harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/pauls_life.htm

31. See www.amazon.com for a list of JD Crossan's books and those of the other Jesus Seminarians: Reviews of said books are included and selected pages can now be viewed on Amazon. Some books can be found on-line at Google Books.

32. Father Edward Schillebeeckx's words of wisdom as found in his books.

33. The books of the following other On Faith panelists: Professors Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, Karen Armstrong and Bishop NT Wright.

34. Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, NY, 1977, 878 pages, with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

35. Luke Timothy Johnson's book The Real Jesus,

Well, I knew this would make CCNL froth at the mouth.

Crossan is a theological liberal( a hack) who does not believe in Christianity as it is spelled out in the gospels and by Paul.

Crossan's rantings about what is and what is not mean nothing, because he does not believe in the Jesus - who was and is God incarnate.

Like to know, there CCNL- how was Jesus able to know about the scriptures so well if he was able to QUOTE them all the time?

Crossan's analysis of who Jesus was and is faulty, and anything else he says is to thrown in the trash heap, along with your frothing at the mouth.

Jesus did not serve communion to Judas, so without regard to the reasons, there is precedent to refuse communion to non-believers, or, as in Judas's case, another Christian.

The question of whether Judas was a Christian is subject to debate though, except not debate here. That is because this site isn't able to tackle any but the most sub-moronic questions.

Dear Farnaz: For me, a "peasant" is not just a small farmer but an exploited or oppressed farmer whose surplus is appropriated by others. Here, for example, are two definitions used in The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, with full references given there: (1) From George Foster: "the primary criterion for defining peasant society is structural - the relationship between the village and the city (or state) - the critical com¬mon denominator is that peasants have very little control over the conditions that govern their lives ... Peasants are not only poor, as has often been pointed out, but they are relatively powerless." (2) From George Dalton: "peasants of all times and places are struc¬tured inferiors. In traditional peasantries, their inferiority is structured legally and reinforced via de¬pendent land tenure." I called Jesus a peasant because he came from a peasant hamlet and was probably a peasant laborer. Although, of course, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it might be a camel in disguise.

CCNL:

Thanks, I tried, but the pages in question are not included excluded. Crossan seems to be using peasant for small farmer. I don't know, but not to worry. I'll get to it at some point.

You know, it was the strangest experience for me skimming through some of this, seeing Josephus used as a highly credible source. I wonder about the literacy business. See Hillel and Akiva on Wikepedia. Not the greatest articles, but it is true that these were poor, very much so, yet they had to have been literate, as you'll see, and there historical existence is not in doubt, not the case with all that is written abot them, of course.

Scribes: Although I don't think the word "scholar" is right, it is preferrd over rabbi in most texts, so who I am to object. Some texts use scholar and rabbi interchangeably, but scholar is primary.

Farnaz,

Again, Professor Crossan's excellent review/book of the historic Jesus is entitled The Historical Jesus, the Life of a Mediterrean Jewish Peasant. Part of the book is on-line at Google Books.

http://books.google.com/books?id=AsPHR4-7Wc8C&pg=PA444&lpg=PA444&dq=%22place+of+life%22+%22the+historical+jesus%22+crossan&source=web&ots=8mVx_1M6g4&sig=XFqT8S1coAT18xq8Qwt1vMcMjW0

Do a quick read on the Chapter entitled Peasant and Protestor.

CCNL:

Scribes: Sorry, I didn't really answer your question about what to call the Tanakh writers. Rabbis (teachers) is what is generally used. This is accurate. They would have had to be teachers. There is no early tradition in Judaism of solitary thinkers, scholars, working alone, etc.

Maimonides was the first such solitary, but even he had a "day job," more than one, actually, was constantly corresponding, fending off visitors, until he found himself with a student he couldn't shake off, didn't want to, came to love. So...I guess even Maimonides wasn't a solitary scholar.

Upon reviewing this article ( as well as the controversy that invoked its creation), one gathers great insight in how to keep high offices and sustain the daily supply of comforts such offices provide.

That is to say: "always adopt the stance that the current controversial affair (or any controversial affair, for that matter) may be reduced to a private concern."

But there is a problem with this: it doesn't work when the controversy revolves around Institutionalized, cannonized religions that have codes and laws to follow.

The question whether SQ's act was right or wrong was not answerd by this well informed person, nor shall it be, although it can be. Too much earthly comfort can be lost, if it is answerd.

All this article has shown is the "compromising" ethos of the writer, which as far as I can tell, has no root in any religion I know.

The writers resume is grandly impressive but the ethical path required to obtain it, is not.

CCNL:

Could you do me a solid and only write my name one time? (I'm familiar with it, so once is enough.)

I'm not defensive about Moses per se, or the construct of Moses, know all about Hammurabi's Code, etc. What is important, vitally so, is the various, often beautiful, philosophically elegant, indeed "singular" treatment of idolatry the transfer of justice, indeed the division of divine justice from the human. The prohibition against idolatry is the sine qua non of Judaism. There is no place you will not find it. See my earlier post. HaShem chose as his prophet a man who said he had no way with words! Etc. Do you understand?
Hear O Israel, not SEE O Israel. Do you understand?

Your "tablet-man" is offensive whether or not Moses existed because it offends against a concept we have yet to grasp. Then, too, the Tanakh is the sacred text of Judaism, appropriated by Christianity, let us not forget.

Awhile back a blogger suggested "Jesus the water skier." Why not use it?

Scribes: I've posted on the authors before but will do so later with references, only if you're genuinely interested, since my point here isn't to win an argument. So, if you're really interested, let me know.

One of the most important things to remember is that the men (except possibly for J who may have been a woman) who were writing were apart from one another not only in space but in time. Time means
theology. Some were more anthropological, some more theological. They differed even with respect to morality in some cases. Some were shaping the traditions of which they were writing. Who were they. Deeply learned persons of the periods.

Atheism: You are an atheist. Yet as MJ, quite learned, points out, as I've pointed out, the existence of a historical Jesus is questionable, at best. You can post lists from now until tomorrow nonstop, but that will not change a thing. You must have him. You cannot do without him. I'm willing to respect that. I do not call him "Jesus, the water skier." I remember now, it was "Jesus, the water skier of New Testament fame." I do not say this. I do not unless you irritate me use Merry's "Q" Gospel in the Sky. (Sorry, Mr. Crossan.)

Peasantry: I'd like to know more about this "peasant" class, but, I'd be lying if I said I'm going to run out and get the book only because I'm overwhelmed reading-wise. If you have time, I'd appreciate a paragraph or two. I'm not out to win or fight. I'd like to know.

ON Jesus' literacy: I skimmed Wikepedia and didn't notice anything on his literacy but will look again. Literacy in Jesus' time was very, very high among Jews, notwithstanding the foreign occupation. It's always been exceedingly high, even in the swampy ghettos of Poland, even in the Russian Pale of Settlement, where "Jews were living on air" (Isaac Babel). It had to be. You know, "people of the book," scroll, etc.

Brw., there are problems with the Wikepedia article, but you probably know that.

Another blogger on this thread, Yael Chen, D.D., mentioned reading Crossan. Maybe I will one of these days....

Ooops, the last commentary was from me. And it should be the Code of Hammurabi not Hammarabi.

One added item, Professor Crossan's excellent review/book of the historic Jesus is entitled The Historical Jesus, the Life of a Mediterrean Jewish Peasant.

Farnaz,

You will have to read the book to read all about said peasant class in first century Palestine.

Might also want to check:

Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz,

Again, being an atheist why be so defensive about Judaism?

Other than the OT, there is no outside attestaion that Moses existed. Tis the reason so many Conservative Jews and their rabbis believe he was mythical. I gave him the nickname "Tablet Man" to emphasize the point.

As per many bible exegetes, the Ten Commandments were derived from other human lists of rules such as the code of Hammarabi. http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

And who wrote down the OT? Hmmm"Jewish Scribes"/ prophets/fortune tellers/ rabbis/. Apparently there are a lot of questions about the authorship and translations with most experts believing there was a least some written form of the Torah around 450 BC.
http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/scribeswritingoldtestament.php

With respect to the illiteracy of Jesus:

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an analysis of Jesus' life to include his illiteracy.

There is only one place in the NT that suggests Jesus could read i.e. Luke 4:16. This passage is not attested to in any other NT passage or in any other related document making it a later addition or poor translation as per most NT scholars' analyses.

See also Professor Crossan and Professor Reed's book, Excavating Jesus, p. 30.

See also Professor Bruce Chilton's commentary in his book, Rabbi Jesus, An Intimate Biography, pp 99-101- An excerpt:

"What Luke misses is that Jesus stood in the synagogue as an illiterate mamzer in his claim to be the Lord's anointed".

It is very unfortunate that Jesus was illiterate for it resulted in many gospels and epistles being written years after his death by non-witnesses. This resulted in significant differences in said gospels and epistles and with many embellishments to raise Jesus to the level of a deity to compete with the Roman gods and emperors.

See Raymond Brown's 878 page book, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Luke 4:16 note on p. 237) for an exhaustive review of the true writers of the gospels and epistles.

Most NT exegetes agree that the none of the Apostles authored any of the NT.

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:27).

That does not mean that she was unworthy. Only her and the lord can attest to that.

However, respect for catholic doctrine when in a catholic church should be maintained.

You will not , however, be refused in an LDS sacrament meeting. Your worthyness is between you and God.

mark

The point missed by many in Roman Catholicism is in partaking of the Lord's supper we do so in
remembrance of Him, in remembrance of His sacrifice of atonement, of His substitutionary work on our behalf, in Him taking upon Himself the penalty for our sins, in Him being our righteousness, not as a transubstantiation of His body and blood. Jesus, in the context of eating of His body and drinking of His blood was speaking figuratively on this point.

I liked and agreed what Patrick@OnlyJesusSaves.com had to say although I have not looked at his site yet as concerning Sally Quinn's participation in the Eucharist.

To Christian (post @ 4:14) I would ask from a Reformed perspective who are the "all" spoken of in the Bible? Every single man, woman and child on the face of the earth or all that the Father gives Him (the Son), all that He (the Son) came to die for? "For HE SHALL SAVE HIS PEOPLE from their sins." Does God have a specific people? Look throughout the Scriptures and see who does the saving, see who has the ability.

In other words, was the atonement a sacrifice that only made salvation possible, or was the atonement a sacrifice that secured the salvation of all it was intended for?

Does God save, or does God only make salvation possible and it is dependent on more than His gift, on our ability to believe and therefore on us? If it depends on our ability, then it depends on what we do, on our works, does it not?

Why do so many not hear the word of God, for faith comes through hearing and hearing through the word? A clue is found in 1 Corinthians 2:14 or Ephesians 2:1-9. Jesus said, "Let him who has ears hear the word of God."

Has anyone ever heard of "host desecration?". That's when you abuse the communion host.

During WWII entire towns of Jews were put to death for essentially torturing crackers.

This whole topic is insane.

In answer to your question "Whom Does Christ Exclude?" the Bible is clear. Jesus would exclude from salvation whom the Father would exclude. Your "eucharist" theology aside, as it is not in the Canon Bible, we would have to consider that unless a person has the fruits of Salvation then we cannot then accept their profession of faith in Jesus, their profession of repentance. James is clear that we can know who is who in the determination of who can receive the elements in that tradition Jesus initiated to proclaim His body given for us, His blood spilled for us. Only those who are His may participate.
So also, as to Salvation, only those who entrust themselves to Jesus as their Kapparah (atonement) will be saved from their just judgment of Hell, and the resultant Eternal Lake of Fire, as they repent of their sins and live in apparent obedience to the commandments of Jesus, being directed by His Spirit, the written Word and the Leadership over them who are obedient to the Scripture.
Patrick J. Burwell/OnlyJesusSaves.com

Thank you, Professor Crossan, for taking the time to share your words with us. Your viewpoints on the meanings of ritual are pertinent to my own struggle to find the foundation of truth that supports not only spirituality but social activism and, especially now, political activism. I have struggled with the Pledge of Allegiance, just as I have struggled with other rituals, especially within the church. I appreciate hearing your perspective.

Thank you, Professor Crossan, for you contributions to this forum. I love to read your perspective on the different issues.

Farnaz:

Very good, Farnaz. Very good, indeed. Sfardic, yes? So am I, of course. Read Prof. Crossan if Catholicism interests you. He's a bit of a radical, not as radical as one might like, but radical enough.

I would have liked to chat with you, but I'll be leaving the country in a few hours. I enjoyed your comments.

Yael

CCNL:

I can tell you what irritates me with respect to some of the things you say, especially, about Moses, and that is, that you miss the point completely, either because you refuse to understand or you wit not to. What is central is not so much the tablets as that the tablets could not be given to humanity.

Why not? Fetishism, idolatry. The writing had to be in human hand, removed from the deity, appropriated, taken by humanity. The commandments had to be appropriated. Justice is ours, humanity's.

Why did the deity choose a prophet who could not speak well to tell them "Exist"? Idolatry. Moses is not God. Why was Joshua always intervening? Idolatry. Why couldn't Moses lead them to the promised land? Idolatry.

No human idols. No man-god Moses. Humanity may be the hero of the story if humanity chooses to be, if humanity accepts the gift of justice with a full mind, mind, CCNL, and heart.

These are the interesting, unique elements in the story. The prince business and some of the rest is syncretism.

CCNL:

Good to see you on this thread. And does Fr. Crossan actually use the word "scribes" for the scholars, learned men (except, perhaps, for J), for those who wrote the the Tanakh? You do understand at least this much, do you not, CCNL--these men were not transcribers?

And what does he say about the J writer, whom Bloom thinks was a woman, and whom others now think is possible? About Deborah, whose fictionality is increasingly in doubt?

Does he call Moses the "Tablet-Man"?

Jesus an illiterate Jewish peasant? Does Fr. Crossan not know that there was no peasant class in existence in Jesus' time?

How does he know that Jesus was illiterate?

Anon, Anon, Anon,

You are referring to Christian Economics 101 no doubt. I do believe Professor Crossan would agree with the historical aspects:

The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking". The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree. But still no greed there.

Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters and a prophecy of the imminent second coming for a fee for salvation and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!!

And he and the other Apostles forgot to pay their Roman taxes and the legendary actions by the Romans made them martyrs for future greed. Paul was guilty of minor greed?

Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free". Major greed on his part!!
The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies. Obvious greed!!!

An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

Victoria:

I think Fr. Crossan is using the word "transubstantiation," brilliantly, I think, in the sense usually reserved for "transformation." In accepting Christ, the earliest Christians were, did become traitors to Rome.

"They did not have time to debate about the exact mechanics of the "transubstantiation" of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (watch for red herrings, always watch for red herrings) because they were too acutely aware of their own "transubstantiation" from Roman citizens to Christian traitors."

what in the world is he talking about?

does this make sense to anyone at all?

CCNL:

I don't get your post here. Where are all your criticisms of fee for service Paul, whom Fr. Crossan quotes? What about the meaninglessness of wafer and cheap wine?

Change your mind rather suddenly?

Professor Crossan,

Your message of what it means to be truly Christian continues. Keep up the good work!!!

Your title, "Whom Does Christ Exclude?" can be answered simply -- no one. Jesus died for all.

However, He is the way, the truth and the life, and no man comes to the Father but through Him. So the only person who is excluded is the person who rejects Christ.

As for holy communion, no one should partake in it unless he or she has already accepted Christ's free gift of salvation. No where in the Bible does it require that you belong to the Catholic church.

It is difficult to understand why someone seeking to emphasize the importance of rituals is so eager to deny them their local, particular, and historical character. It is not true that the "Pledge of Allegiance" has nothing to do with the land-mass between Canada and Mexico, just as it is not true that the Eucharist (at Mass) can be interpreted away from its fundamental link to the theology of Roman Catholicism.

It is the same error to cite the modern terms "distributive" and "non-violent" justice as if they were the explicit aims of Jesus, and not rather our own aims projected back onto Him. They are political matters and as such are not immediately concerned with the Holy, the true beginning of ritual.

You are a joke, Crossan.

You love to focus on Rome and ignore the larger message of the gospels and human nature. (p.s. - the crowd called for the death of Christ, not the Romans)

How many books have you sold lately, you huckster! You one trick pony!

PS - what do you think about this University Prof. calling for desecration of the Eucharist:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/now_ive_got_bill_donohues_atte.php