Shroud of Turin

Originally posted by David C
uh-huh. You're the one with no evidence to support his existence, beyond the pure fiction of the NT and 1700 years of brutal, iron-handed suppression of non-believers. You're the conspiracist, Hammy.

There is more evidence to believe in the existence of a historical Jesus (even if you don't believe in the miracles) who was crucified than there is to believe in the existence of the philosopher Socrates. And I'm the conspiracist? LOL

Originally posted by lucifershammer
There is more evidence to believe in the existence of a historical Jesus (even if you don't believe in the miracles) who was crucified than there is to believe in the existence of the philosopher Socrates. And I'm the conspiracist? LOL

First rule of any screeching apologist, get the non-believer to admit the historical existence of Jesus, 'miracles' or not. Second rule, convince them to treat the 'gospels' as some sort of legitimate history. Third rule, bring up all the other potential mythical personages treated as possibly real (I think you missed a chance to mention Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great, btw).

You've learned your Tektonic lesson well.

And I'm the conspiracist?

That's correct.

Originally posted by David C
First rule of any screeching apologist, get the non-believer to admit the historical existence of Jesus, 'miracles' or not. Second rule, convince them to treat the 'gospels' as some sort of legitimate history. Third rule, bring up all the other potential mythical personages treated as possibly real (I think you missed a chance to mention Julius Caesar and Al ...[text shortened]... your Tektonic lesson well.

[b]And I'm the conspiracist?

That's correct.[/b]

First rule of any screeching apologist, get the non-believer to admit the historical existence of Jesus, 'miracles' or not.

Actually, it's the zeroth rule - most sane non-believers don't need to be asked to admit the historical existence of Jesus. That's a given. The sane non-believer will take the miracles ascribed to Jesus as part of a natural process of "mythifying" that happens around any historical personality - Alexander, Buddha, Mohammed etc.

Second rule, convince them to treat the 'gospels' as some sort of legitimate history.

First rule, actually.

Third rule, bring up all the other potential mythical personages treated as possibly real (I think you missed a chance to mention Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great, btw).

So, you think Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great were also mythical?

You need a shrink, not an apologist.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
So, you think Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great were also mythical?

You're not very good at interpreting tone, are you?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
2. Again, IIRC, the image on the shroud does indeed correspond to it being wrapped around the person. That is one of the pieces of evidence cited against it being a forgery - the art forms of the 14th century were distinctly two-dimensional (you know what I mean).

And which version of the Shroud are you seeing?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]First rule of any screeching apologist, get the non-believer to admit the historical existence of Jesus, 'miracles' or not.

Actually, it's the zeroth rule - most sane non-believers don't need to be asked to admit the historical existence of Jesus. That's a given. The sane non-believer will take the miracles ascribed to Jesus as part of a nat ...[text shortened]... sar and Alexander the Great were also mythical?

You need a shrink, not an apologist.[/b]

It seems that the acceptance of a historical Jesus is widespread for two reasons. First, a lot of theologians/religion professors are motivated by an a priori faith in Jesus Christ. Second, those that are not xian, take Jesus as historical because it is a working assumption of the field, not because it is a well-established truth. Given the dearth of good evidence for JC's existence, I don't think it is accurate to characterize a Mythical Jesus proponent as not insane.

Originally posted by telerion
Given the dearth of good evidence for JC's existence, I don't think it is accurate to characterize a Mythical Jesus proponent as not insane.

Come again?

Originally posted by KnightWulfe
And which version of the Shroud are you seeing?

How many versions do you know?

Originally posted by telerion
It seems that the acceptance of a historical Jesus is widespread for two reasons. First, a lot of theologians/religion professors are motivated by an a priori faith in Jesus Christ. Second, those that are not xian, take Jesus as historical because it is a working assumption of the field, not because it is a well-established truth. Given the dearth stence, I don't think it is accurate to characterize a Mythical Jesus proponent as not insane.

Re: that last sentence, I echo BdN. You need to double-check your double-negatives.

But, as I told DC, there is more evidence for the belief in a historical Jesus than there is for a historical Socrates. I don't see anyone questioning the existence of Socrates, do you?

Besides, historical proof is not all about photographs and newspaper reports. How do we know the historical existence of Buddha? Or Zarathustra? Or Confucius? Or, hell, Alexander the Great for that matter? Do the documents we use to assert their historicity have any less bias than the Gospels?

Where there is smoke, something must be hot.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
But, as I told DC, there is more evidence for the belief in a historical Jesus than there is for a historical Socrates. I don't see anyone questioning the existence of Socrates, do you?

Nobody has based a cult on Socrates. Nor would Socrates' non-existence, if proved, have much impact--as Plato's literary character, he would remain as alive as ever. Nobody has a vested interest in proving or disproving Socrates' historical existence. At the same time, your statement that there is less evidence for Socrates than Jesus Christ is a bit glib--what is the basis of your claim?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Nobody has based a cult on Socrates. Nor would Socrates' non-existence, if proved, have much impact--as Plato's literary character, he would remain as alive as ever. Nobody has a vested interest in proving or disproving Socrates' historical existence. At the same time, your statement that there is less evidence for Socrates than Jesus Christ is a bit glib--what is the basis of your claim?

Nobody has a vested interest in proving or disproving Socrates' historical existence.

That doesn't mean the question is not of import to historians.

At the same time, your statement that there is less evidence for Socrates than Jesus Christ is a bit glib--what is the basis of your claim?

From Wikipedia:

As such, the entirety of modern knowledge concerning Socrates must be drawn from a limited number of secondary sources, such as the works of Plato, Aristotle, Aristophanes and Xenophon. Aristophanes was known as a satirist, and so his accounts of Socrates may well be skewed, exaggerated, or totally falsified. Fragmentary evidence also exists from Socrates' contemporaries. Giannantoni, in his monumental work Socratis et Socraticorum Reliquiae collects every scrap of evidence pertaining to Socrates. It includes writers such as Aeschines Socraticus (not the orator), Antisthenes, and a number of others who knew Socrates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates#His_character

With the exception of Aristophanes, all the remaining sources mentioned are disciples of Socrates (Aristotle, in particular, isn't even born when Socrates dies).

And, of course, one can always look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus-Myth

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Nobody has a vested interest in proving or disproving Socrates' historical existence.

That doesn't mean the question is not of import to historians.

At the same time, your statement that there is less evidence for Socrates than Jesus Christ is a bit glib--what is the basis of your claim?

From Wikipedia:
[quote]As such, t ...[text shortened]... s dies).

And, of course, one can always look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus-Myth[/b]

How is that less evidence?? The bulk of Biblical scholars don't believe that any of the writers of the Gospels actually knew Jesus, so writings by Socrates "disciples", at least some of whom were his contemporaries, is more evidence, not less.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Re: that last sentence, I echo BdN. You need to double-check your double-negatives.

But, as I told DC, there is more evidence for the belief in a historical Jesus than there is for a historical Socrates. I don't see anyone questioning the existence of Socrates, do you?

Besides, historical proof is not all about photographs and newspaper reports. ...[text shortened]... istoricity have any less bias than the Gospels?

Where there is smoke, something must be hot.

Yes, I got turned around on that last sentence. Would you believe I actually took a negative modifier out at the last second? Guess I should have left it in there.

Actually, in my college, the professor did point out that we are not sure whether Socrates really existed. We then went forward on the assumption that he did since it really didn't make any difference for our purposes whether Socrates was flesh and blood or a literary vehicle.

It's true that historical proof is not as cut and dry as it is in many other disciplines. Nevertheless, there is nothing insane about finding the idea that Jesus was a myth more plausible than that he was a living man.

Originally posted by telerion
Nevertheless, there is nothing insane about finding the idea that Jesus was a myth more plausible than that he was a living man.

How is it more plausible? Is it more plausible to believe that Mohammed never existed (and his first biography doesn't get written for nearly two centuries!)? Or Buddha? Or Zarathustra?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
How is it more plausible? Is it more plausible to believe that Mohammed never existed (and his first biography doesn't get written for nearly two centuries!)? Or Buddha? Or Zarathustra?

I'd say being extremely skeptical about the historical existence of these people is not insane. Do you believe that Hercules existed?