That’s because the catchall term “Hinduism” is too broad to describe the variety of subjects involving Indian religious thought and culture that are studied in modern academia. It would be like trying to get a PhD in “Western Civilization”.
Of course, both at Indian universities and elsewhere there are tons of doctoral programs in specific fields that fall under the general heading “Hindu studies”.
Baby steps.
Regards,
Shodan
No, of course not. “Direct understanding” is not the only kind that matters. Especially not when you’re studying the Bible; every single thing in it needs a lot of historical contextualizing. Furthermore, you are making an unstated assumption of sola scriptura as a source of doctrine, which not all Christians accept even in theory.
That’s what Indian academics claim, but its not actually true. Theology can be studied in as broad or as narrow a sense as the student likes. You might as well say you couldn’t develop a PhD program in South Asian history, because the topic is too broad.
well i strongly disagree. with your concept, not with you. i think a direct understanding is better because well, it is the most real. ok, so my bias is obviously that i dislike the bible and christianity. i ask you however, is not more “sophisticated” interpretations of the bible just watering it down? in some cases ignoring the parts you don’t like and selecting the parts you do? in other cases trying to make it more palatable and easy to swallow? in some cases making it harder than it is to suit your agenda?
You write like that and you call the bible ridiculously simple and juvenile?
Well see, this isn’t about the hunting at all, is it? You’ve got mommy issues. Step mommy issues to be precise. My suggestion to you is that when you see her next, you whine: “you’re not my real mom and I don’t have to do what you say, cuz, by the way, I’m damn near 50 years old (insert correct age here) and I’ve figured out that a divinity PhD is not nearly as smart as a physics PhD because I watch The Big Bang Theory.”
I do think that you are correct in pointing out that divinity docs are usually not anywhere near as bright as history docs, but it might not be a socially acceptable idea to point that out to them.
Your original post asked, “What exactly is required for a PHd in (Christian) Theology?”
The answer is: specific requirements differ at various conferring institutions. In no case that I am aware of, however, does a conferring institution limit their study to the single command to read the Bible. This answers the critique you make in the rest of your post – the suggestion that because the entirety of the Bible is straightforward, it’s difficult to imagine a post-graduate course of study in theology.
Here is one example about which there is considerable scholastic disagreement: Jesus’ brothers.
The English translation of the Bible refers more than once to Jesus’ brothers. Matthew 12:55-56, for example, in the King James version, Jesus’ teaching in his home town causes onlookers to question his wisdom, apparently because they knew him as a child and know his family, and do not understand how he knows all the things he teaches: " Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?"
That translation seems to say clearly and plainly that Jesus had brothers and sisters – it even names his brothers. This is, as your original post suggests, something the average college freshman can easily understand.
However, it’s obvious that the Bible was not written in English. Jesus’ words did not even appear in red text. The language spoken at the time was Aramaic; the written language from which we derive our primary source information for the Bible was Greek. And there is some dispute over the meaning of the Greek words adelphos and adelphe. Literally they are translated as “brother” and “sister,” to be sure. But the literal translation of “raining cats and dogs” is that animals are falling from the sky. Translations must capture idiomatic meanings. The word is used in other contexts to mean something other than a literal sibling. Lot is Abraham’s “brother” according to Gen 14:14, even though the text makes clear he’s the son of Abraham’s actual sibling brother Haran – for which the literal English word is “nephew.” Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic had a distinct word for “cousin,” which explains Mali’s sons Kish and Eleazar’s offspring in 1 Chronicles 22: Eleazar died having fathered only daughters, who married their “brothers,” the sons of Kish. In fact, that describes a marriage of first cousins.
This is one example of Biblical scholarship that – in my view – extends beyond the ken of a college freshman, at least insofar as analysis and acceptance, or refutation, of the claim that Jesus had siblings. And this, in turn, gives lie to the thesis of the OP.
This is The Pit, right? So I can call the OP a moron and wish he would go away?
Crawl back under your rock, Robert. You’re too stupid to be allowed out without a keeper.
actually, my contact with my step mom has been very limited. we’ve never lived in the same house. in fact we’ve pretty much always lived in separate states.
So, looking to hand it on a bit, then?
Obviously Robert163 is referring to the plain and straightforward way in which God laid out his views without any possibility of misinterpretation due to contradictions within texts or among versions of the same texts that have come down to us. He reads the text and sees only simple and obvious answers to any conundra of ontology, teleology or morality that so many supposed great minds of the past two thousand years have been padding their resumes with when it only takes the common sense of a modern day western mind to see that no puzzles or dilemmas have been left as an exercise for the reader. All that is really wanting in a spiritual leader who seeks to lead his flock through the myriad mysteries of faith and the answers they offer by way of moral and spiritual guidance and salvation through the covenant set down long ago for a people in a very different world from our own is he can talk good.
Case closed.
ok, thank you for your response i can tell you put a lot of time into typing it so thanks. but my response is, what if Jesus didn’t really exist and therefor this talk of his brothers is just a dog chasing its tail? or, if it was just some preacher named jesus who never walked on water and never rose from the dead. more chasing of tails to try and find out if he had brothers or not.
yeah except that more “sophisticated” answers (whatever is the opposite of simple and obvious) are no good. i mean, do you need sophisticated answers to explain why lighting is not really bolts hurled by zeus? or is it just silly primitive mythology?
i’m not sure what hand it on means but i’m pretty sure, whatever it is, yes, i’m guilty of it
Kinda proves my point about mommy issues, doesn’t it?
what? she married my dad after i moved out. not really sure what your point is apart from simple vitriol.
Hey, as long as you’re willing to live with the obvious being all you got, go nuts. As Thomas Aquinas said:
Robert163: You’re still hung up on the idea that the only thing required for a doctorate in theology/religious studies/divinity specific to Christianity is a knowledge of the Christian Bible. That’s not even close to the case. This has been pointed out to you in this very thread more than once. There’s not even a requirement for the student to accept the religious precepts to receive the degree. All that is required is to demonstrate the knowledge of a number of things pertaining to the degree, and those things differ from institution to institution.
Do your really want to know the answer to the question you posed in the OP? Given your posts in this thread, the answer to my question is incredibly obvious. Another thing that’s obvious is that you’re simply trolling now, and not doing a very good job of that either.
Finally: You’re no E. E. Cummings. Learn how to capitalize, punctuate, and paragraph.
in all seriousness, its better then living on false hope and specualtion