Talk:John Dominic Crossan

message: The controversial field is not identified (and linked?): "New Testament criticism"? Whatever y'all prefer. --Wetman 16:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was identified by implied reference to Crossan as a Biblical scholar.  Evidently that was not sufficient, so it has been corrected and amplified.  Thank you for pointing this out.  --Blainster 02:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsourced?  Have you not read Crossan?  (I will source them better for you.  He does call the Rapture "Crapture.")Eschoir 18:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "...but is dismissed by those critical of his historical methodology."  Source? Ejectgoose 03:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source? 

message: My recent removal of the dating euphemism from this article was undone and I was accused of violating wp:era, apparently because I didn't create a talk section discussing it first. So here is the requested talk section. Let's remove the foolish euphemism for dates -- there appear to be only two of them, so it seems a simple problem to solve. 
If you want to remove Jesus from the dating system, if that is your reason for using "CE" etc, them come up with a new dating system (e.g. the establishing of the United Nations). Using a euphemism is intellectually dishonest. For this reason, let's remove the euphemism (CE, BCE) and call the date what it actually is (AD, BC). -- Newagelink (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  From WP:ERA, "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change." Editor2020, Talk 20:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, thank you for quoting the background for this discussion. As you can see, I've done as that section requests here. If Editor2020 thinks further clarification is needed: Crossan favors intellectual exercise and the pursuit of knowledge, and is partial to Christianity such that many consider him a Christian. It is therefore inappropriate to engage in intellectually dishonest euphemisms such as "Common Era" while using the 'Anno Domini' dating system, and, as if that weren't enough, it is more appropriate to mention the Lord he so often discusses (and for whom he took priestly vows). -- Newagelink (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's use AD/BC, not the foolish euphemisms for them. 

message: I deleted material that was challenged and not verified, and I added material referenced to top-notch sources. The page could use more detail, and the lead could use reorganization, but there's no need for this tag. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed old tag 

message: I removed the claim that Crossan had affirmed his non-belief in God.  The YouTube video does not reliably support this.  I was expecting something from Crossan himself but, instead, it's William Lane Craig relating a second-hand, fragmentary account of his conversation with Crossan and his own rather negative interpretation of Crossan's beliefs.
William Lane Craig was referring to a debate that he'd had with Crossan, the narrative of which is included in the book "Will the real Jesus please stand up", referenced in the books appended to the main article.  The YouTube video merely recounts the debate and indirectly the book.  Crossan denies there is a God in the orthodox sense preferring to believe God is a mere construct of the human psyche.  To all intents and purposes Crossan is an atheist in the sense that he does not believe in an entity that exists separately from the human mind.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.7.164 (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheism