youngalexander

Late to the feast again, third shot at your quote lucky (attempted humor there).
Having recently spent some considerable time combating creationists, and in particular their claims re not being published in [scientific journal X] I would point out that there is a deliberate and precise reason for this. That is, the claims of creationists, and in particular 'Intelligent Design Creationists' have been examined in considerable detail by the the scientific community [I shall spare you the links - but am quite willing to supply them] and have been found wanting!

The difference with the HJ/MJ debate is that there has been no academic refutation of the MJ position.

Let me point out again - there have been numerous scientific refutations of creationism, and IDC in particular. The scientific community has engaged the IDC proponents in debate both public and internet, via publication and most recently at Law. No, creationism does not have a voice in scientific journals, because, by consensus (publicly expressed) of the overwhelming number of scientists - it is not science.

Where is the debate re the HJ? Make no mistake, that is where the burden of evidence lies.

Understand this, Jesus of wherever is only one amongst many godling claiments. Make your case or keep silent.

Ahab

I think there are a numbe of people who believe Jesus did none of those things and yet still belive he was a real historical figure.
As I've mentioned, I am no expert in this field, so I have avoided trying to deal with the arguments on either side of this issue. But I was under the impression that if someone thought that there really was this man called Jesus who did some teaching and somehow managed to ruffle enough feathers to be executed by crucifixion that he would still be considered a historicist.
Are you saying that one also has to believe all the miracles attributed to Jesus before one is considered an historicist?

Ahab

You're right. I can see how within the context of this discussion that would be a legitmate interpretation of what I wrote.
All I can say in defense is it was poorly written. I was well aware that it was someone else who was paying money in order to get Earl's paper published. That is how I should have worded it. Apologies to Earl and to you.

So is it the scholarly norm to pay money in order to get a paper published in an academic journal?

Ahab

Did I say they didn't use facts or did I say the were only relying on their authority as scientists?
They use facts and good arguments to debunk ID. And the reason some of them spend so much time and effort doing so is because of the public interest. And because much of the public needs this info in order to make an informed decision. If ID was not spending so much money on PR and trying to get their wacko theory into the school cirriculum you wouldn't see all these books being written to debunk ID.
Are the science journals filled with research studies trying to disprove ID? Most scientists are merely going on their merry way engaged in whatever particular research project they are interested and ignoring the ID'ers.

freigeister

Untrue. Try here and here.

Try here and here.

Ahab

That's not how I interpret the follwoing comment:
"It's the historicist side, RPS, that functions without either argument or evidence. It's the historicist side that, in the words of the lazy-ass scholar above, in "my experience is that no evidence or argument will change his mind." It's the historicist side that are the Creationists here, making broad historical claims without evidence, argument, or method to support them. "

RPS

Unfortunately, I can't. My copy of the book is at home and I fly cross-country later today.

I read it, but don't see it as making anything like the claim you allege.

This statement fails to note, again, the stated reason why Farmer treats it as axiomatic.

I never suggested otherwise.

RPS

The idea that every HJ scholar has taken a religious vow sounds ridiculous on its face and should be ridiculed unless you have evidence for it. More importantly, your suggestion that a scholar who is also a Christian is prima facie suspect and therefore assumed to lack integrity is outrageous (you might check out some biographical data on Vermes for example).

There are reasons why anyone with strongly held views might choose to ignore contradictory ideas. Do you honestly not understand the difference between reasons for doing so and evidence of having done so?

Why should we assume, for example, that a cultural Christian has taken any kind of religious vow and why should we assume that Christian scholars will act without integrity? Moreover, your conspiracy theory fails to account for non-Christian HJ scholars.

Edit: typo

RPS

The debate was held a century or so ago. You must have missed the memo. Unless and until an academic Jesus-myth case is made anew, there's no reason to re-open it.

The difference between this discussion and the ID nonsense is that ID is a current public policy brouhaha and actually has working academics making the case for it, misguided though they may be.

Zeichman

This is somewhat absurd. I could make a claim that Mythicists are scholars who have an anti-Christian vow. It's simply poisoning the well, by suggesting that Christians cannot be objective.

Burton Mack (iirc), Bart Ehrman, Donald Akenson, Raymond Martin, among others are non-Christians who take the existence of an HJ for granted. Or would some here make the case that these individuals were merely brainwashed?