By the way, for anybody who is truly interested — and I mean seriously interested —
***I should have checked Crossan’s Wikipedia page before engaging with you. Crossan is a prime example of an idealogically driven revisionist, basically a heretic.
in the historicity of the New Testament, I could not more highly recommend another very spirited Irishman, former Catholic priest, John Dominic Crossan.
***Crossan is no more interested in historicity than the Bolsheviks were.
If I may use the term, Crossan is religiously historical,
***Having gone a few rounds with you, I see that you aren’t quite naive, so it’s obviously you were pushing an agenda, idealogically twisting history in revisionism and even crossing the line to heresy.
reducing the New Testament to what can be justified based on critical textual analyses.
***No, just reducing the New Testament. That’s his aim, and appears to be your aim. FReepers who are interested in reading heresy would be well recommended to follow Crossan and uphold his quackery & the ridiculous Jesus Project. Historicity by way of voting! Amazing. Face palm amazing.
I think we have much more serious political issues to deal with right now than hunting heretics.
No, Crossan is a historian, as opposed to, say, a writer of Christian apologetics.
I think you once claimed you knew the difference.
Crossan applied strict historical standards to all the documents related to biblical history.
Of course, from a religious perspective, as I warned you in the beginning, you won't like his results.
But that's real history, as opposed to religious apologetics.
I think I've explained all of this now several times.
Do you ever pay attention?