Can Science Prove Christ Really Existed?

[Madeline]

Can Science Prove Madeline Really Exists?

I would imagine so. I can prove my identity to the satisfaction of any legal authority, and I show up on x-rays when body scanned.

In 500 years, that proof might be harder to make. In 2,000 it might not be possible...and I am living in the digital age.

How can we "prove" the existence of any identifiable human from before written history?

 

[geauxtohell]

How could science prove Jesus existed using DNA? He was said to have had no children and no siblings...whose DNA would we test?

If they had some sort of tissue or bones to test it would be possible. I am not saying they can do it now, I am just saying science can establish the existence of a person with a high probability with the appropriate amount of DNA.

Of course, if they ever were able to find some of Jesus' DNA it would create larger questions due to the whole divine conception concept.

Pragmatically though? Never going to happen. Probably a good thing too.

 

[frazzledgear]

We know there was a King Tut because we have his remains, along with tons (literally) of written descriptions of his life, made during his life. But do we have that sort of archeological evidence that a person named Jesus Christ ever existed?

If I am recollecting this right, Jesus was born in Nazareth because Joseph and Mary had had to travel there to be counted for some sort of Roman census. Did any document of that census survive the mists of time? I know about the Shroud of Turin -- anyone here convinced that it serves as scientific/historical evidence that Jesus really existed?

If there is no physical proof that he existed, is it possible to say that the books of the Bible, written so long after his death is said to have happened and with so little agreement amongst them, establishes the fact of his existence as a matter of science?

From what I can gather, there is not much doubt that Buddha existed, or that Joseph Smith did. I just wondered, do we have that level of certainty that a historical figure named Jesus Christ ever existed?

And before you ask, this is not in the Religion Forum because I am not looking to debate the matter with folks who "accept Jesus". Any religious person should be able to tell you that faith and scientific proof are not the same thing.

I hope you aren't silly enough to believe that only the most important things survived intact down through history here. King Tut was a minor and unimportant king while the tombs of some of the most important Kings of Egypt have been totally lost to history. Same is true of the historical documents that survived through the centuries from the Roman Empire -the surviving records of the Roman Empire are actually incredibly sparse and not well documented at all given the scope and depth of power it had. And that isn't even touching on the fact that there have been times when "cleansing" the historical record of particular kings and other people were made. So hoping to find evidence regarding a single person in an outlying Roman conquered territory who was not a member of the Roman government, a conqueror or warrior and the like and considered to be little more than a common criminal at the time - already lowers the odds exponentially. So where can you best look for that evidence? You use whatever you can find and among the first would be Jewish records because Jews kept meticulous records through history and have NEVER included a mythological person who never existed at all. Even while deeming Jesus to not have fulfilled prophecy as the Messiah, their records do acknowledge the existence of Jesus.

Historical Jesus

This article makes an interesting point about those whose usually unspoken goal is to try and separate the historical Jesus from the "myth". But as this article points out, such people are driven by the 20th century philosophy of naturalism which holds anything outside the realm of natural explanation can never be backed by historical evidence. Which means such people already approach the search for the historical Jesus with an agenda to try and disprove the "myth" part even while being forced to acknowledge Jesus' existence.

The Shroud of Turin is the myth here, not Jesus and every effort to date that cloth shows it was made long after the crucifixion of Jesus. No Christian church that I know of claims that cloth shows the image of Jesus on it and it is the possession of the Catholic Church which also says it does not believe it is the image of Jesus. Did you even bother to Google that one? The actual chronology of Jesus birth is still being debated among biblical scholars so no one's opinion here is going to change that debate -and I would only point out those debating that all agree that Jesus really did exist and is not a "mythological" character like Pegasus.

This particular article goes into some of the supporting evidence in the historical record and archeological record that exists for the descriptions, timing and locations of events detailed in the Gospels and I'm not going to repeat it all here. But that evidence does include outside historical records confirming the existence and events for some of His apostles which also helped determine when the different books in the New Testament were written and confirms when they died which then confirms when still others of the Gospels were and were not written. The apostles were the very people who claimed to have known and interacted with Jesus personally, the people who wrote the Gospels in the first place and we know that there are historical records that support the time line of certain events that happened to some of these Apostles -just as they wrote about.

As this article points out the "historical Jesus" crowd believe the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus were all written in the late 1st or early 2nd century and even after that have been repeatedly re-written, manipulated and exaggerated over time to evolve into what they see as the current "myth". But this is not supported by the historical evidence. It is a matter of historical record when the first person accounts of the life of Jesus and letters written by the apostles were gathered (early 1st century) -which then became most of the books of the Gospels of the New Testament. Outside historical records also confirm many of the events that were detailed in the first person by the authors of the Gospels after the crucifixion of Jesus. And most importantly it correctly points out the basic Christian doctrine developed far too quickly for a myth to intervene and distort the historical record. By the late 1st century and early 2nd century, Christian doctrine was already firmly established, the tenets of which remain unchanged from the time the apostles wrote their letters and first person accounts and the divinity of Jesus was part of that from the beginning while the apostles still walked the earth spreading His message -and nearly all those first hand accounts of the apostles were written AND already officially collected together 30-50 years after the crucifixion. By the early 2nd century the conversion of the Roman Empire (which also included much of Europe) was already underway.

The search for the "historical Jesus" is an effort by those who are forced to accept reality that He really did exist and isn't just a figment of someone's imagination who managed to deceive billions throughout history with the most egregious and longest lasting hoax that was all about a non-existent person. Even the most stubborn atheist must acknowledge it would be beyond stupid to believe the leading religion in the world is based on an imaginary, non-existent person but still one who had such an amazing message that struck just the right chord with billions in the world throughout history to this day. LOL So they have moved on to Stage Two of the attack on Christianity with an effort to somehow "prove" He was in reality nothing more than a "good man". Yeah, right. As if the world has never known a good man before or since -which should tell you there must be something more than that involved here to differentiate Jesus from all other men. And it isn't as if we haven't seen hoards of people claiming to have that same kind of status that Jesus has -none of it ever "took" with any of those phonies though, did it?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is more evidence for Jesus Christ than there is for manmade Global Warming

(Come on, admit it, you guys missed me for stuff like this)

 

[Richard-H]

I seems to me that since Jesus was a commoner that was executed as a criminal,and since the city (Jerusalem) that would host any records of His existence has been destroyed and looted many times over, we should expect that there would be no physical records verifying his existence.

However, we do have at least one, if not several, eye-witnesses to his existence. These would be his Apostles and disciples. We know that St. Peter existed. We know that the eye-witness testamony by a number of other disciples and Apostiles was recorded.

So the question really is - were these people totally lying? You could argue that they may have exagerated, that they were religious fanatics and prone to near hallucinations, but does an analysis of the writings and story's point to people that were totally pshychotic?

Did they conscientiously and conspiritorially just make up the existence of Jesus? What would they have had to gain?

Whereas I don't believe everything that the Gospels say about Jesus, I think that it's kind of far fetched to think that he actually didn't exist.

 

[Richard-H]

There is more evidence for Jesus Christ than there is for manmade Global Warming

(Come on, admit it, you guys missed me for stuff like this)

What is it that you don't understand about a thermometer?

 

[Big Black Dog]

Science cannot prove that Christ existed and they can't prove he did not exist either. To believe in Christ, you must have faith. If you do not have faith, nothing anybody will ever say to you will cause you to believe in Christ. The choice to believe in Christ, or to not believe in Christ, is entirely up to you and your own beliefs.

 

[The Infidel]

I saw Jesus at The Home Depot yesterday!!!!!

He's here and he's an illegal alien







Just kidding..... Its all about faith.
Personally, I need no proof. He is real in my heart, and that s all I need.

 

[mudwhistle]

Does it really matter if Jesus actually existed? Would his non existance invalidate his message?

Yes.

The fact that he died for us....makes all of the difference in the world.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

There are all kinds of goofy conflicts in the texts.

As pointed out by Rocky, Augustus never ordered a single empire wide census. There were regular censuses carried out in various provinces, and they were also usually a cause for a revolt in the local area. As what happened with the (local) census mentioned in the bible.

One of the reasons that it would be hard to find any record on the guy in Jeruselem is that the place has been comprehensibly sacked several times since. The Romans really did a number on the place in 70AD.

Best guess is that several historical figures were combined into Jesus, including Hilliel, whose ideas mirror the ideas of Jesus closely. They are supposedly both responsible for the same words.

A lot of what is now Christianity would have been (and for that matter, still is) anethema to Jews. Virgin Birth, the Eucharist, the idea of confession of sin, the idea of sacrifice of the son for a short list of examples.
But a lot of things that he preached about have sort of moved into canonical Judaism. Or were standard and forgotten.

 

[Madeline]

Science cannot prove that Christ existed and they can't prove he did not exist either. To believe in Christ, you must have faith. If you do not have faith, nothing anybody will ever say to you will cause you to believe in Christ. The choice to believe in Christ, or to not believe in Christ, is entirely up to you and your own beliefs.

I disagree, Count Dracula. Almost every Jew I know believes that Jesus existed, and that he was a good man. They just don't believe he was the Messiah.

 

[Richard-H]

Just to play the Devils advocate:

What if Jesus (Joshua) existed, but didn't really have much to do with the character described in the gospels?

What if Jesus really was intent on replacing Herod as the King of the Jews, but his plot failed?

After all, the very first statements of the Gospel of Matthew show the lineage of Jesus as a decendant of David, thereby showing that he is a rightful heir to the throne (Note: These same statements also seem to refutiate the notion of the 'virgin birth'...i.e Jesus was the son of Joseph):

"1:1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

1:2Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren; 1:3and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram; 1:4and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon; 1:5and Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 1:6and Jesse begat David the king.

And David begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah; 1:7and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa; 1:8and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah; 1:9and Uzziah begat Jotham; and Jotham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekiah; 1:10and Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amon; and Amon begat Josiah; 1:11and Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the carrying away to Babylon.

1:12And after the carrying away to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begat Zerubbabel; 1:13and Zerubbabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 1:14and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 1:15and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 1:16and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Guess the RCC kinda missed that.

Just suppose that Herod was universally hated by just about everyone - even the Romans.

So having a descendant of David, a commoner, who preached peace and spirituality, as the King of Judea, would have fit an awful lot of people's playbooks very very well.

But the whole thing backfired. Herod's people succesfully started a riot when Jesus entered Jerusalem for the passover, the quasi-peaceful revolution that would have put Jesus into the thrown failed.

Now, with the ancient priests predicting a full eclipse of the sun on passover afternoon - an event that would have synchronized an nation-wide rebellion, a plan to distract was put into motion.

Surprisingly, Jesus agreed. A phony execution. 3 hours on the cross along with some sedatives administered as the 'sour' wine was enough to cause Jesus to go unconscience, but not die. (hey, if a bunch of people told you that the dead were rising out of the grave - woould you go and investigate?)

So they took him off the cross - without the traditional leg breaking that ALWAYS went with Roman cruxifictions. He laid up in the tomb for 3 days, then emerged.

Still recovering, Jesus hung around Jerusalem for about 40 days - even visiting his desciples a few times.

Then a golden chariot swept him off to France where he was awarded a huge land holding, Roman citizenship and title.

He then fathered the lineage of the early midievil French Kings (The Sacred Blood line).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is more evidence for Jesus Christ than there is for manmade Global Warming

(Come on, admit it, you guys missed me for stuff like this)

What is it that you don't understand about a thermometer?

I said Manmade Global Warming.

For all the bleating and caterwauling the Warmers, that is, people who take Manmade global warming as an article of faith and look to writing of East Angelic Traveling Circus as scripture, still cannot site one single repeatable laboratory experiment that show how deminimus increases in CO2 causes the purported changes.

You have faith that we're causing "Global Warming"

 

[Madeline]

"What if" is fun to play, I'll admit. I loved "The DaVinci Code" and the idea that Jesus was sexually active, and had had a child.

Sometimes it seems to me that the RCC took Paganism and went through it with a hatchet, cutting out all that is feminine, sexual or fun...replacing it with everything masculine, antagonistic and cruel. There does not seem to be much doubt that the Bible, as we know it, did not exist before the Council of Niceaea.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: First Council of Nicaea

The Council of Nicaea (Nicea) and the Bible

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Gospels are real clear that the message that got him in trouble was his heresy, not his threat to the political order. He was quite clear that you pay to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. And you owe God what what is God's.

 

[Old Rocks]

Does it really matter if Jesus actually existed? Would his non existance invalidate his message?

Not at all. If Jesus is really a composite of many of the jews of that time that were seeking answers to their problems and questions of existance, that does not change the wisdom of much of the message that bears his Name.

 

[Anguille]

Does it really matter if Jesus actually existed? Would his non existance invalidate his message?

Yes.

The fact that he died for us....makes all of the difference in the world.

That is plain retarded! What is important about Jesus, myth or fact, is not his supposed martyrdom, it's how he helped spread the message that we must treat eachother with respect.

 

[Madeline]

If that was Jesus' core message, Anguille, then why are so many Christians so disrespectful to others?

 

[Anguille]

I never much thought about it before but this thread has made me less certain Jesus ever did exist.

 

[Valerie]

Does it really matter if Jesus actually existed? Would his non existance invalidate his message?

Yes.

The fact that he died for us....makes all of the difference in the world.

That is plain retarded! What is important about Jesus, myth or fact, is not his supposed martyrdom, it's how he helped spread the message that we must treat eachother with respect.

I'ts not just respect....It's sacrifice.