Crossan's is one of two dozen books I have here on biblical subjects.
I mention him only because I consider his work "pure history" as opposed to, oh, say, Bill O'Reilly's book which is intended as "popular history", and makes no critical analyses of his various sources.
Kevmo on distinguishing between religion & history: "***I can. You can’t. here’s proof.
Post #1864 where you confuse a historical observation with a religious belief."
Friend it is a simple fact that not every historian agrees with your claim in your post #1,864 that Jesus said he was "equal" with God (iirc, Crossan, for one, discards the whole discussion as being the invention of generations later gospel writers).
But such a claim certainly is included in some religious creeds.
Kevmo: "***I would suggest to FReepers that they’d have to take your word for it, but judging from your writings on this thread that is a spiritually unwise thing to do."
Of course, anybody reading these posts can judge for themselves, but I am here doing my level best to represent the religious views of our Founding Fathers.
So your criticisms of me are criticisms of them too.
This debate is not Kevmo versus BroJoeK, it's Kevmo versus our Founding Fathers as represented by BroJoeK.
Kevmo on whether history is "just another religion": "***Where did I claim that?
I didn’t. You projected it.
Again with the projection thing, you’re worse than the average libtard troll on these threads."
In fact you've strongly suggested that people who disagree with your alleged "historical" beliefs do so for religious reasons -- indeed that is the very basis for your claim of BroJoeK's "heresy", is it not?
Perhaps I have too quickly assumed that you would apply the same "logic" to the works of John Dominic Crossan, accuse him of an "ideological" or "religious" agenda and call him a "heretic".
But, if it turns out that you study his works and decide otherwise, then I'll be happy to revise my thinking.
Kevmo: "Proof that you’re here on idealogical grounds and now you’re just trolling and pushing a heresy.
A damnable heresy, as the title suggests."
You know, I think I'm starting to like the company I'm in so far -- Founding Fathers, John Calvin at least partly, maybe Crossan if I can get you to condemn him too?
Oh, no doubt Abraham Lincoln, and while were thinking about it wouldn't even Ronald Reagan fall into this category...?
I mean, after all, he wasn't such a big church-goer, maybe had ideas of his own?
I mention him only because I consider his work “pure history”
***Of course you “consider” it to be that, but the guy is a pure heretic and his idealogy matches your own. Simple, straightforward heresy, just in time for Christmas. You are a sick son of the devil, a viper, a heretic.