So, there exists no need for "ALL university-level scholars" to reject the case for mythicism because some people up top already made that decision for them before they were ever born.
And who are these "people up top" and how do they make the decisions for every single scholar at every single university in every single country in the world?
Then, we get people like you, KD8, who know nothing about it but regurgitate the whole 'Why don't university-level scholars agree with you?' type of crap when they simply know nothing about it because they're not required to study it in the first place.
And neither are the people who DO study it, but that doesn't stop them, does it? Why do you think it stop university-level scholars, but not the rest?
The case for mythicism is absolutely NOTHING like "Young-Earth Creationists" or "truthers", "birthers", "holocaust deniers." We actually have a mountain of credible evidence that actually exists
YEC's, truthers, birthers and holocaust deniers believe the evidence is on their side, as well, and, like mythicists, believe the rejection of their evidence is about something more than their evidence. Personally, I'd say that if the evidence was on the mythicists' side, getting evidence from them wouldn't require a $1000 challenge. And, heck, even after three years of presenting the challenge, no one's been willing to share the evidence. Even trying to get it from the people in this forum is a bit like pulling teeth. But, no, the problem CAN'T be with the evidence.
of course, you KD8, wouldn't know much about that since you refuse to study it.
I'll not only study it, I'll post it to my website for all to see. As soon as someone can find it, that is.
Well, you wouldn't really know anything about it and you've proven that repeatedly over the last 8 years you've been posting the same lies on your website in order to shore up your Christian faith at all costs.
If I'm lying, then expose me by sending me the evidence you claim I'm ignoring. I won't be able to ignore it then, will I?
You're either not reading the posts or you're not comprehending them. There's more info in the books, which you refuse to read:
"...there have been many such establishments, including major universities like Yale and Harvard, both of which started as Christian divinity schools.1 Numerous other institutions in the Christian world were either founded specifically as Christian universities and colleges or had seminaries attached to them...."
Again, this doesn't explain why it's not taken seriously at non-religious institutions or in non-religious countries.
Now you're just setting up strawman arguments. The fact remains that many major universities began as some sort Christian divinity schools and they often admit it on their own "about" page websites. I even gave you an example
And many more did not. I'm sorry, but it's hard for you to claim that the so-called discrimination against mythicists is because SOME universities have a religious past, when the same so-called discrimination exists at universities that have no such past.
Oh pleeez, Bart Erhman doesn't know squat about the case for mythicism.
You missed my point. I'm saying that Bart Ehrman's repeatedly writing books against Christianity just shows your claim that university-level academics are afraid to face off against Christianity is bunk.
Do you really think Ehrman's belief in a historical (though not divine) Jesus is out of some sort of pressure that he's succumbed to?
He has no credible primary source evidence to point to for a HJ.
That doesn't answer my question. Do you think his REASON for his belief in a historical Jesus is out of pressure from "up top"? If so, why does he write against Christianity in other ways? Do the people "up top" allow some things, but not others?
I doubt it with Erhman. It certainly has happened many times in the past. You'd know more about that if you read the books you've been refusing to read for 8 years now. We will find out soon when Ehrman comes out with his new book next week
and you're welcome to join that discussion.
I think the book's subtitle gives us a clue on what his stance is.