outhouse

False again. It wasnt a threat.

This is not a example.


We have a scholar hired by a religious institution to teach religion, and because his views go against what he was hired to do, he was let go.

This has not effected one thing in relation to a historical Jesus, this is only a matter in apologetics, which people do not confuse with history.

aa5874

So how did you get your impression, Toto?? This is the fundamental problem here. People are speculating without any actual evidence and admiting that they have no basis for their assumptions.

How in the world can Christianity be true if Jesus had NO real existence??

After all it is claimed Jesus, the Son of God, was baptised by John, was crucified AFTER trials with the Sanhedrin and Pilate when Caiaphas was High Priest and Herod was Tetrarch.

outhouse

That doesnt cut it here.

You have failed to provide one example of how a historical Jesus view has been effected by your claims. It hasnt. There is a difference between apologetics and scholarships.

There is no tyranny here at all, just cynical people with time to waist online, instead of wanting to gain knowledge on the subject they debate.

DCHindley

I think we are ignoring the fact that the more liberal wing of the Christian spectrum have long held that the existence of the "historic" Jesus ("Historic" means the Jesus portrayed in the NT), could mean either that a "historical" Jesus did not exist, or if he did, he wasn't as portrayed in the NT. In other words, the social value of the ethical teachings derived from the NT are more important than the existence of a "historical" Jesus.

Many Liberal Christians do not necessarily believe that Jesus had to be like he is portrayed in the NT.

One liberal Christian, Albert Kalthoff (early 20th century pastor of a Reform church in Bremen, Germany), denied that Jesus even existed, and others still follow in that tradition.

The Unitarian Universalists are probably the most liberal of all, and belief in a historical Jesus is entirely voluntary.

DCH

jakejonesiv

Hi outhouse,

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you really do not know what you are talking about.

Mythicists find themselves in the same position as the early evolutionists when they began to challenge the established Creationist dogma.

Mythicism is not an outlandish idea that contradicts any established historical methodology other than "scholarly consensus" and the long shadow of the church. I personally know three Christian scholars who harbor doubts, but will never acknowledge them publicly because they fear the damage that will be done to their careers.

I can name one scholar with impeccable credentials whose scholarly studies were refused publication: Hermann Detering, Ph.D. (1991), Thema der Dissertation: die holländische Radikalkritik, Doktorvater Prof. Walter Schmithals. Schmithals himself was the student of Rudolf Buhltman.

He eventually lost his position in 2009 as a Christian Minister in Berlin due to publicly doubting the existence of Jesus. Indeed we find this pattern over and over among the earlier Dutch Radical Critics.

So it is all a sham. Mythicists are denied livelihood and publication.

Jake

Toto

Mr. o - you are the one wasting our time with your poorly edited taunts and lack of content.

Unfortunately, you have stepped into this discussion near the end. In previous years on this forum, we have had graduate students relate that their professors warned them that even talking about the mythicist hypothesis would be the kiss of death to their careers. We have seen the short lived Jesus Project just begin the scholarly examination of the question of historicity, before the economic crisis put an end to it.

You are not going to find any direct evidence of this tyranny. You will only find that scholars interested in continued employment tend to avoid the issue.

outhouse

Taunts and lack of content and knowledge are basically assaulting modern scholarships.




Myticism isnt really the topic here. Please stay focussed here T


This is about a mythical tyranny on modern scholarships



Because there isnt any. That is my point.


"Your" people mythicist, are providing out of context statements making a claim they cannot back.

All I asked for was examples, to substanciate their individual claims.

aa5874

There is no "scholarly consensus" that there was an historical Jesus.

People here confuse "majority" with "consensus".

If there was a 'scholarly consensus" that there was an historical Jesus then there would be virtually no scholars who argued for the non-existence of Jesus.

But, what is even more disturbing to me is that there is an ONGOING quest for an historical Jesus yet all of a sudden by some miracle we have a consensus.

We don't have any real scholarship just the propagation of mis-leading information.

outhouse

Your going off topic.

This is a debate about tyranny on modern scholaships, not mythicist claims.

Even then your dead wrong. Theist developped the hypothesis of Evolution and they had credible science to back the facts regarding evolution.

Mythicism is not new, its been around longer then when evolution was first hypothesized. Evolution just had credible evidence and facts, where mythicism does not.


I know his work.

Your going on a off topic rant.

Being fired from apologetics has nothing to do with scholarships on historical Jesus.

His opinion and claims still stand no matter where he works. Now he only has more possibilities due to not having a apologetically inclined school, drag him down or slow his work.


You havnt impressed me on any level, as im a former mythicist.

Conspiracy minded attacks on modern scholarships are ignored for a reason.

Grog

No, you are asking the wrong question. You base your reasoning on whether or not it was proper or right for Brodie to lose his position. That's not the question. The question is: is there a direct self-interest in promoting or repressing certain points of view. The answer to that question is yes. That Brodie had the courage to go forward anyway, speaks well of Brodie.

Brodie's case is pretty clear cut. I don't think it is too fundamentally different in most "theology departments." However, the process itself weeds out dissent. In other words, to go through a department of NT Studies, religious studies, biblical studies, or similar such, dissenting views are weeded out. Those who survive are those who internalize (or less likely are just cynically self-interested) the paradigm that prevails in whatever department they are in. You can observe this across disciplines, but I think in this particular area it is likely to be much more pronounced. For that reason, you are probably more likely to see critiques of the reigning paradigm from outside...and that's what we are seeing with Thomas Thompson, Richard Carrier, G.A. Wells, Earl Doherty.