Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 02-21-2013, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

There aren't so many mythicist scholars so therefore it isn't credible!

Naturally, we also have the fallacy of begging the question too: A mythicist by definition can't be either "real" or "credible". Why? (See argumentum ad populum.)

.

You seem to be having a comprehensive issue.

That is not what I stated.

The lack of credible mythicist scholars could be a sign that once one is educated enough, very few find any real evidence for mythicism. But I hadnt even stated that.

Price is credible, its just most scholars think his arrow isnt pointed in the right direction. Carrier is also credible but wallows in the middle of he road not taking a real side allthough leaning towards mythicism. Hopefully his new book makes more sense then his last.

outhouse · 02-21-2013, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

I figured anyone with nerve synapses firing would incorporate that over a thousand years the Church tortured, murdered, and persecuted anyone deemed a heretic. They burned books, forged documents, interpolated what we have before us now.

.

History is written by the winners, its always been known to be this way. Its nothing new.

In this case, we know there were many competing sects, with different views.

These views were not that different though. Take Marcion. We know what he was up to by the sheer number of people that opposed his view so much, they told us exactly what he was doing and following.

We also know Christianity formed from a sect of Judaism that Hellenistic Proselytes found profound importance in. This isnt up for debate.

outhouse · 02-21-2013, 02:21 PM

Instead of claiming tyranny, do you have any examples of exactly how this so called tyranny has affected historians view of a historical Jesus?

Or is this all bark and no bite?

spin · 02-21-2013, 04:40 PM

Yo Bob,

I think you're flirting around hegemony and control of discourse. Christians have to control christian discourse, don't they? Who gives a fig about a few randy priests in the grand scheme of things? A shuffle here and a shuffle there... New York city is no place where....

The discourse is the thing. Scholarship is ultimately an aberration... at least to the office of Propaganda Fide.

Minimalist · 02-21-2013, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

.......

You can't get a job in the first place without adherence to the party line, and you'll be summarily fired if you publish a book challenging the historical Jesus. Non-religious institutions don't do much in the way of Biblical Studies, so the field is absolutely dominated by the tyranny of canon.

Friar Tom Brodie is not alone. How many American scholars have been terminated from their tenure in the last year or so for straying too far from the tyrannical guidelines? Here is the start of a list. Perhaps others can add to it - or tabulate it with dates? - for the sake of clarity on this issue.

Anthony Le Donne for publishing Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know It? (or via: amazon.co.uk)

The Mike Licona controversy and Matthean Zombies

It really does sound like modern academic institutions operate with a defacto Index Librorum Prohibitorum

Quote:

The Index Librorum Prohibitorum (English: List of Prohibited Books) was a list of publications prohibited by the Catholic Church. A first version (the Pauline Index) was promulgated by Pope Paul IV in 1559, and a revised and somewhat relaxed form (the Tridentine Index) was authorized at the Council of Trent.

The promulgation of the Index marked the "turning-point in the freedom of enquiry" in the Catholic world.[1]

The final (20th) edition appeared in 1948, and it was formally abolished on 14 June 1966 by Pope Paul VI.[2][3][4]

The Vatican may have abolished the codex but AFAIK Ratzinger seems simply to have moved the Index Librorum Prohibitorum to the internet.

This explains why Herr Von Popenfuhrer let the perverts off. He was too busy worrying about bad books to worry about bad priests.

mountainman · 02-21-2013, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

I figured anyone with nerve synapses firing would incorporate that over a thousand years the Church tortured, murdered, and persecuted anyone deemed a heretic. They burned books, forged documents, interpolated what we have before us now.

.

History is written by the winners, its always been known to be this way. Its nothing new.

In this case, we know there were many competing sects, with different views.

These views were not that different though.

According to the victors (the heresiologists) these other views of the vile gnostic heretics were not that different.

The question is whether the tyrannical heresiologists white-washed the entire arena to cover over a massive controversy between views which were diametrically opposed to those of the victors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bart Ehrman

"The victors in the struggles
to establish Christian Orthodoxy
not only won their theological battles,
they also rewrote the history of the conflict"
"later readers then naturally assumed
that the victorious views had been embraced
by the vast majority of Christians
from the very beginning ...
"The practice of Christian forgery
has a long and distinguished history ..."

mountainman · 02-21-2013, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The Vatican may have abolished the codex but AFAIK Ratzinger seems simply to have moved the Index Librorum Prohibitorum to the internet.

This explains why Herr Von Popenfuhrer let the perverts off. He was too busy worrying about bad books to worry about bad priests.

It's a tyrannical racket that perpetuates suffering.

jakejonesiv · 02-22-2013, 02:02 PM

Not just Brodie. Many more are intimitated to keep their mouths shut, because they know what will happen. Those who venture too far into the "heart of darkness" suddenly pull back and become caricatures of their previous selves (Hoffmann, Ehrman).

I can name one scholar with impeccable credentials whose scholarly studies were refused publication. He eventually lost his position as a Christian Minister due to publicly doubting the existence of Jesus. In several ways, acedamia is like a private club, and mythicists are the "wrong kind of people" who must be kept out.

The study of Christianity holds a privileged position in the academic world. If the case for a mythical Jesus is seriously considered, the professional scholar of Christianity, whether liberal or conservative, becomes just another student of comparative religion, mythology, and history of religions. These scholars are institutionally invested in Christianity even if they are agnostic or atheists.

Twentieth century ecumenicalism marked a retreat from nineteenth century rationalism. Mainline New Testament studies purposefully became more conservative lest its privileged position disappear into comparative mythology and the Religiongeschichteschule.

There is now a Status Quo Bias against changing one's long held position. If an established scholar embraced a mythicist position (or even entertained the questions seriously), he would have to repudiate a lifetime of previous work. He would also find himself the target of some subtle peer pressure unrelated to the merits of the argument.

We are slowly regaining the ground lost in the early twentieth century. There is a new openness to discussing the existence of Jesus among liberal scholars that just a decade years ago was unthinkable.

The question of the historical existence of Jesus encapsulates the question of how we know and determine truth in a society where a counterfeit rationality and science have been co-opted and subverted by special interests.

Jake Jones IV

outhouse · 02-22-2013, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Not just Brodie. Many more are intimitated to keep their mouths shut, because they know what will happen. Those who venture too far into the "heart of darkness" suddenly pull back and become caricatures of their previous selves (Hoffmann, Ehrman).

I can name one scholar with impeccable credentials whose scholarly studies were refused publication. He eventually lost his position as a Christian Minister due to publicly doubting the existence of Jesus. In several ways, acedamia is like a private club, and mythicists are the "wrong kind of people" who must be kept out.

The study of Christianity holds a privileged position in the academic world. If the case for a mythical Jesus is seriously considered, the professional scholar of Christianity, whether liberal or conservative, becomes just another student of comparative religion, mythology, and history of religions. These scholars are institutionally invested in Christianity even if they are agnostic or atheists.

Twentieth century ecumenicalism marked a retreat from nineteenth century rationalism. Mainline New Testament studies purposefully became more conservative lest its privileged position disappear into comparative mythology and the Religiongeschichteschule.

There is now a Status Quo Bias against changing one's long held position. If an established scholar embraced a mythicist position (or even entertained the questions seriously), he would have to repudiate a lifetime of previous work. He would also find himself the target of some subtle peer pressure unrelated to the merits of the argument.

We are slowly regaining the ground lost in the early twentieth century. There is a new openness to discussing the existence of Jesus among liberal scholars that just a decade years ago was unthinkable.

The question of the historical existence of Jesus encapsulates the question of how we know and determine truth in a society where a counterfeit rationality and science have been co-opted and subverted by special interests.

Jake Jones IV

Provide examples of how apologist have changed a single view regarding anything towards a historical Jesus.

outhouse · 02-22-2013, 08:24 PM

Im going out on a limb here, but a few people really need to learn the difference from cynicism and skepticism.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-21-2013, 02:21 PM	#13
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	Instead of claiming tyranny, do you have any examples of exactly how this so called tyranny has affected historians view of a historical Jesus? Or is this all bark and no bite?

02-21-2013, 04:40 PM	#14
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Yo Bob, I think you're flirting around hegemony and control of discourse. Christians have to control christian discourse, don't they? Who gives a fig about a few randy priests in the grand scheme of things? A shuffle here and a shuffle there... New York city is no place where.... The discourse is the thing. Scholarship is ultimately an aberration... at least to the office of Propaganda Fide.

02-22-2013, 02:02 PM	#18
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	Not just Brodie. Many more are intimitated to keep their mouths shut, because they know what will happen. Those who venture too far into the "heart of darkness" suddenly pull back and become caricatures of their previous selves (Hoffmann, Ehrman). I can name one scholar with impeccable credentials whose scholarly studies were refused publication. He eventually lost his position as a Christian Minister due to publicly doubting the existence of Jesus. In several ways, acedamia is like a private club, and mythicists are the "wrong kind of people" who must be kept out. The study of Christianity holds a privileged position in the academic world. If the case for a mythical Jesus is seriously considered, the professional scholar of Christianity, whether liberal or conservative, becomes just another student of comparative religion, mythology, and history of religions. These scholars are institutionally invested in Christianity even if they are agnostic or atheists. Twentieth century ecumenicalism marked a retreat from nineteenth century rationalism. Mainline New Testament studies purposefully became more conservative lest its privileged position disappear into comparative mythology and the Religiongeschichteschule. There is now a Status Quo Bias against changing one's long held position. If an established scholar embraced a mythicist position (or even entertained the questions seriously), he would have to repudiate a lifetime of previous work. He would also find himself the target of some subtle peer pressure unrelated to the merits of the argument. We are slowly regaining the ground lost in the early twentieth century. There is a new openness to discussing the existence of Jesus among liberal scholars that just a decade years ago was unthinkable. The question of the historical existence of Jesus encapsulates the question of how we know and determine truth in a society where a counterfeit rationality and science have been co-opted and subverted by special interests. Jake Jones IV

02-22-2013, 08:24 PM	#20
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	Im going out on a limb here, but a few people really need to learn the difference from cynicism and skepticism.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.