Shroud of Turin

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

The bulk of Biblical scholars

You're talking about the historico-criticalists, who are by no means the "bulk" of Biblical scholars.

at least some of whom were his contemporaries, is more evidence, not less.

Not necessarily - you need to take into consideration the literary style and conventions of the time. In the case of the 4th cent. BC Greeks, that convention meant that Plato, for instance, could easily put his own words and ideas into Socrates' mouth in his plays (and let's not forget that - all the evidence we have of Socrates from Plato, and possibly the others, are plays).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not necessarily - you need to take into consideration the literary style and conventions of the time. In the case of the 4th cent. BC Greeks, that convention meant that Plato, for instance, could easily put his own words and ideas into Socrates' mouth in his plays (and let's not forget that - all the evidence we have of Socrates from Plato, and possibly the others, are plays).

So if Socrate goes up in a puff of smoke--does Jesus too?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
So if Socrate goes up in a puff of smoke--does Jesus too?

If Socrates were to go up in a puff of smoke, it wouldn't be based on the current evidence. Some new evidence would have to be discovered to confirm his non-existence.

So the answer to your question is - obviously not.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If...So...obviously not.

The first part of your answer is good. The second part is unrelated to the first.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The first part of your answer is good. The second part is unrelated to the first.

Sorry, forgot to type out the entire argument.

If new evidence is discovered proving the non-existence of Socrates - how does that imply the non-existence of Jesus?

That's like saying - based on the evidence so far, BdN and LH are both males. New evidence has come up suggesting BdN is female. Therefore LH is also female. See the logical fallacy?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Sorry, forgot to type out the entire argument.

If new evidence is discovered proving the non-existence of Socrates - how does that imply the non-existence of Jesus?

That's like saying - based on the evidence so far, BdN and LH are both males. New evidence has come up suggesting BdN is female. Therefore LH is also female. See the logical fallacy?

Cripes, LH, you must think I'm an idiot. Of course I see the logical fallacy--my question was designed to point it out!

What was the point of your saying that there is supposedly more evidence against Socrates' existence than Jesus? If each case is taken on its merits, Socrates is perfectly irrelevant to the Jesus incident.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Cripes, LH, you must think I'm an idiot. Of course I see the logical fallacy--my question was designed to point it out!

What was the point of your saying that there is supposedly more evidence against Socrates' existence than Jesus? If each case is taken on its merits, Socrates is perfectly irrelevant to the Jesus incident.

Cripes, LH, you must think I'm an idiot.

Sometimes. 😉 No doubt you think the same of me at times. Shouldn't stop us having a civilised and meaningful conversation, though.

What was the point of your saying that there is supposedly more evidence against Socrates' existence than Jesus? If each case is taken on its merits, Socrates is perfectly irrelevant to the Jesus incident.

Socrates is irrelevant to Jesus, but the standard of proof for the historicity of Socrates is not. Read my argument again - it assumes no change in standards of historical proof.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Socrates is irrelevant to Jesus, but the standard of proof for the historicity of Socrates is not. Read my argument again - it assumes no change in standards of historical proof.

Quite. There is no irrefutable evidence for the existence of either--only a scale of probability. Hardened skeptics need not fear incarceration.

This is starting to feel a bit like an ID vs. TOE thread. Excuse me...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
There is no irrefutable evidence for the existence of either--only a scale of probability.

With the exception of strict logical deductions, there is no irrefutable evidence for virtually anything. Ever hear the one about how you cannot refute solipsism?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Ever hear the one about how you cannot refute solipsism?

I remember Samuel Johnson's refutation of Berkeley 🙂

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I remember Samuel Johnson's refutation of Berkeley 🙂

For some light holiday reading:

http://www.philosophos.com/knowledge_base/archives_14/philosophy_questions_1488.html

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/ToC/berkeley-johnson.htm

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'm saying that finding the myth scenario more plausable than the historical scenario does not make one insane.

As for Buddha and Zarathustra, or even Mohammed, I have never looked into their cases. If some one claimed that the historicity of these figures was doubtful and offered some good reasoning, I'd have to check out the case for historicity myself. If their case was as weak as that for JC, I'd have to admit that their being myths is a reasonable possibility.

Do you believe insane is an accurate way to describe a person who thinks it more likely that Socrates was a literary construction of Plato than that Socrates was a real person?

Personally, I'm agnostic about whether Jesus Christ really lived. Furthermore, I could really care less what the answer is as it doesn't affect my position on anything in regards to JC. The fact that there is so much room for doubting his historicity is more than enough for me.

Originally posted by telerion
I'm saying that finding the myth scenario more plausable than the historical scenario does not make one insane.

As for Buddha and Zarathustra, or even Mohammed, I have never looked into their cases. If some one claimed that the historicity of these figures was doubtful and offered some good reasoning, I'd have to check out the case for historicity mys ...[text shortened]... he fact that there is so much room for doubting his historicity is more than enough for me.

I'm saying that finding the myth scenario more plausable than the historical scenario does not make one insane.

Maybe not legally or medically insane. How about just "nutters"?

As for Buddha and Zarathustra, or even Mohammed, I have never looked into their cases. If some one claimed that the historicity of these figures was doubtful and offered some good reasoning, I'd have to check out the case for historicity myself. If their case was as weak as that for JC, I'd have to admit that their being myths is a reasonable possibility.

However weak the case is for the historicity of Jesus (and I contend that the case isn't weak at all compared to many other historical figures from the period; it will definitely be weaker than the case for, say, JFK, naturally), the case for his non-existence is weaker still. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, as you well know. The case for a fictional Jesus does not have any positive evidence to back it - it is a case built entirely on discrediting positive evidence for his existence (and it doesn't do a particularly great job of that either).

With that standard of proof, the person in question could believe that Jesus and Socrates were fictional, that the moon landings were a hoax, that Roswell was visited by aliens and that the Holocaust never happened. At which point he is, if not technically insane, then just nutters.

Of course, all of this assumes that the person in question has reviewed, to a reasonable extent, the arguments for and against the historicity of Jesus. It's possible that, in the modern 'Da Vinci Code' world, a person may have received unbalanced information on the matter and is just mistaken. Nevertheless, such a person still has to believe in the "absence of evidence equals evidence of absence" principle.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
How many versions do you know?

I have seen the one of which I am aware and the image is like a photograph, NOT as if it was wrapped about the body.

Originally posted by KnightWulfe
I have seen the one of which I am aware and the image is like a photograph, NOT as if it was wrapped about the body.

How would you expect it to look if it were wrapped about the body?

If it were simply placed on the body?