Can Science Prove Christ Really Existed?

[Anguille]

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

Because they are fucked in the head?

 

[Anguille]

Madeline, I just read this last week and I think you might find it interesting also.

Searching for Jesus in the Gospels : The New Yorker
A Critic at Large

What Did Jesus Do?

Reading and unreading the Gospels.

by Adam Gopnik May 24, 2010

Read more: Searching for Jesus in the Gospels : The New Yorker
​

When we meet Jesus of Nazareth at the beginning of the Gospel of Mark, almost surely the oldest of the four, he’s a full-grown man. He comes down from Galilee, meets John, an ascetic desert hermit who lives on locusts and wild honey, and is baptized by him in the River Jordan. If one thing seems nearly certain to the people who read and study the Gospels for a living, it’s that this really happened: John the Baptizer—as some like to call him, to give a better sense of the original Greek’s flat-footed active form—baptized Jesus. They believe it because it seems so unlikely, so at odds with the idea that Jesus always played the star in his own show: why would anyone have said it if it weren’t true? This curious criterion governs historical criticism of Gospel texts: the more improbable or “difficult” an episode or remark is, the likelier it is to be a true record, on the assumption that you would edit out all the weird stuff if you could, and keep it in only because the tradition is so strong that it can’t plausibly be excluded. If Jesus says something nice, then someone is probably saying it for him; if he says something nasty, then probably he really did.
So then, the scholars argue, the author of Mark, whoever he was—the familiar disciples’ names conventionally attached to each Gospel come later—added the famous statement of divine favor, descending directly from the heavens as they opened. But what does the voice say? In Mark, the voice says, “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased,” seeming to inform a Jesus who doesn’t yet know that this is so. But some early versions of Luke have the voice quoting Psalm 2: “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” Only in Matthew does it announce Jesus’ divinity to the world as though it were an ancient, fixed agreement, not a new act. In Mark, for that matter, the two miraculous engines that push the story forward at the start and pull it toward Heaven at the end—the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection—make no appearance at all. The story begins with Jesus’ adult baptism, with no hint of a special circumstance at his birth, and there is actually some grumbling by Jesus about his family (“Only in his home town, among his relatives and in his own house, is a prophet without honor,” he complains); it ends with a cry of desolation as he is executed—and then an enigmatic and empty tomb. (It’s left to the Roman centurion to recognize him as the Son of God after he is dead, while the verses in Mark that show him risen were apparently added later.)
The intractable complexities of fact produce the inevitable ambiguities of faith. The more one knows, the less one knows. Was Jesus a carpenter, or even a carpenter’s son? The Greek word tekto¯n, long taken to mean “carpenter,” could mean something closer to a stoneworker or a day laborer. (One thinks of the similar shadings of a word like “printer,” which could refer to Ben Franklin or to his dogsbody.) If a carpenter, then presumably he was an artisan. If a stoneworker, then presumably he spent his early years as a laborer, schlepping from Nazareth to the grand Greco-Roman city of Sepphoris, nearby, to help build its walls and perhaps visit its theatre and agora. And what of the term “Son of Man,” which he uses again and again in Mark, mysteriously: “The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” As Diarmaid MacCulloch points out in his new, immensely ambitious and absorbing history, “Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years” (Viking; $45), the phrase, which occurs in the Gospels “virtually exclusively in the reported words of Jesus,” certainly isn’t at all the same as the later “Son of God,” and may merely be Aramaic for “folks like us.”

Read more: Searching for Jesus in the Gospels : The New Yorker
​

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, no, all of these people do not mention Jesus in there histories. Not only that, the mention in Josephus's writings has been deemed a forgery by many scholars.

Much of the life of Jesus in the New Testement is taken from prior stories about other God-Humans in the cultures of the Middle East. Just as the story of Noah was predated by Babylonian myths.

Did Jesus Christ exist? All sides to the question

He asserts that there are a number of historical and mythical figures whose life stories contain these elements, including Jesus. But just as we do not regard Hercules as a historical figure, a case can be made that Jesus was also a mythical character.

Some theologians and historians believe that many of the details of Jesus' life were "borrowed" from a competing, contemporary religion, Mithraism. The religion was founded in Persia before the birth of Christianity.

Mithra was a fictional character who was worshipped as a Good Shepherd, the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, and the Messiah. A religion in his name was founded in the 6th century BCE. 5 Mithraism one of the most popular of religions in the Roman Empire, particularly among its soldiers and civil servants. It was Christianity's leading rival. 19 Mithra was also believed to have been born of a virgin. Like Jesus, their births were celebrated yearly on DEC-25. Mithra was also visited by shepherds and by Magi. He traveled through the countryside, taught, and performed miracles with his 12 disciples. He cast out devils, returned sight to the blind, healed the lame, etc. Symbols associated with Mithra were a Lion and a Lamb. He held a last supper, was killed, buried in a rock tomb. He rose again after three days, at the time of the spring equinox, circa MAR-21. He later ascended into heaven. Mithraism celebrated the anniversary of his resurrection, similar to the Christian Easter. They held services on Sunday. Rituals included a Eucharist and six other sacraments that corresponded to the rituals of the Catholic church. Some individuals who are skeptical about stories of Jesus' life suspect that Christianity may have appropriated many details of Mithraism in order to make their religion more acceptable to Pagans. St. Augustine even stated that the priests of Mithra worshipped the same God as he did. 19 Other early Christians believed that Satan invented Mithraism and that he made Mithra's life and the practices of the religion identical to what Christianity would become centuries later. They felt that Satan's purpose was to confuse believers.

Many religious historians have noted the many parallels between events in the life of Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) and God-men from ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc

well, no, they all do mention jesus in their histories. the debate over the authenticity of one passage in josephus' histories is well known, but other mention of him is accepted as authentic.

if it bothers you to believe the man existed, then don't.

It is not a matter of my belief or disbelief in the existance of Christ, but rather the historical evidence for that existance that is being discussed here. If you read the rest of the article, and many other scholarly articles, you will find that those 'mentions' of Jesus are not at all that definate.

As far as I can see, there is no definate evidence of the existance of Jesus. It is a matter of faith, which I have no problem with. But the lack of evidence should not be hidden by blather. It only leads young people to reject the whole message when the discover the reality of the lack of evidence.

 

[Old Rocks]

well, no, they all do mention jesus in their histories. the debate over the authenticity of one passage in josephus' histories is well known, but other mention of him is accepted as authentic.

if it bothers you to believe the man existed, then don't.

Weren't they all going an hearsay anyway? Back then many people believed sea monsters and all sorts of fantastical creatures existed.

believing a man existed and writing about him more or less contemporaneously is not quite the same as believing in sea monsters, imo.

Rather less contemperanously if you look at the date of the manuscripts.

 

[Old Rocks]

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"

Wrong thread.

 

[del]

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

a high proportion of christians are human.

 

[Old Rocks]

Correct. And since the thread is about whether Christ actually existed, the present day actions of those claiming to believe have nothing to do with the reality of lack thereof of his existance.

 

[rdean]

You would think the "son of gawd" would have his life fully documented. Not just "baby" "boy" and suddenly a man.
Then he was supposed to be a carpenter, but no one ever described what he made, if anything. He didn't write anything down, so he probably couldn't write or read.
I just don't understand why so many white Americans follow a middle eastern deity? Doesn't make sense.
Could you imagine Rick Warren or Rod Parsley or Pat Robertson bowing down before a dark skinned middle easterner wearing dirty wizard robes and sandals?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bNern0k03U]YouTube - What would Jesus Wear?[/ame]

 

[frazzledgear]

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 don't know, maybe your mind just works differently. But I don't find fabricating and falsifying data, engaging in overblown but untrue drama queen hysterics and issuing lying ass reports to be real strong points in support of global warming. Of course for those who believe in global warming like a martyred saint, no amount of evidence will shake their really, really misplaced faith.

Claims Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 were false, says UN scientist | Environment | The Guardian

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming – Telegraph Blogs

Global warming labeled a 'scam'*-*World*-*The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

When it comes to science I am not required to BELIEVE in anything. Science is NOT a religion and scientists are not gods where I am required to take on faith whatever gibberish they want to theorize about! Science is not something that is determined by a popularity contest or by consensus either. In fact history has shown doing that will inevitably cause significant harm to real people in addition to having caused the deaths and/or murders of millions who are all too often sacrificed on the altar of scientific worship. It has happened in more than one country and more than once. My personal belief in global warming is NOT required here and there is never any obligation on me or anyone else to justify or explain the lack of religious belief in global warming and refusal to wear the liberal hair shirt about it! Global warming fanatics really do think the onus is on non-believers to justify their non-belief in this theory which is just ludicrous! That isn't how science works at all!

The obligation and duty here is ENTIRELY on scientists to provide the INDISPUTABLE facts and evidence FIRST. Since there is plenty of DISPUTE with plenty of evidence it is actually riddled with fraud and doctored data, then those who still BELIEVE with a religious fervor anyway while insisting there is something wrong with anyone who does NOT share their same faith -could legitimately have their critical thinking skills called into question. There is no dispute and accusations and loads of evidence of fraud and falsification in settled science. I can't think of a single theory where after repeated evidence of accusations of fraud, outright lying and doctoring up the data, that theory ended up proving out to be accurate.

Seen any accusations that Newton doctored up his findings or that Hawkings destroyed his raw data or that Einstein did or that he just fabricated phony data to fit his theory as exists in this instance and coming from other scientists around the world now? LOL If there is dispute and accusations of fraud and falsification -as there is here -then what you should really keep in mind is that is far more likely to be true than not. When it comes to accusations of fraud and doctored findings in science, that old adage "where there is smoke, there is fire" has consistently held true.

Add in the fact there was destruction of raw data along with the evidence of fraud and doctored findings -and there is clearly a real problem here that is all but shrieking FRAUD at the top of its lungs. The destruction of the raw data is NEVER done in science because it is absolutely necessary to preserve that raw data so others can confirm the findings, a critically important step in scientific process here and without which the theory cannot move forward. It is really important to get this one -destruction of the raw data is NEVER NEVER done by any honest and credible scientist. No one can confirm the findings of any scientist without that raw data because THAT is what was relied upon for their conclusions. Without that raw data, the conclusions themselves about that raw data are immediately rendered MEANINGLESS. The destruction of the raw data in THIS instance was done for the specific purpose of PREVENTING anyone else from confirming their conclusions because they KNEW anyone else looking at that same raw data would never have reached their lying ass conclusions in the first place. And they did it in spite of the fact they are taught in school as one of the first principles of sound scientific practice that the destruction of raw data is only done by the dishonest, liars and cheats in the first place! The truth doesn't need exaggeration, destruction of data or doctored findings in order to endure. It is what it is -and unfortunately for those who have a perverted NEED to belief in global warming like a religion or those assholes like Al Gore who set himself up to make BILLIONS (but only if we continue to play suckers and ignore the fact they have all been caught red-handed MAKING IT ALL UP) -it is a man made myth.

Liberals like the idea of global warming for several reasons -many of them because they believe it would provide an easy means of moving their political and social agenda forward with less resistance and on a far more ambitious scale. If it didn't, they wouldn't pay any attention at all to this theory and would resist it entirely if it interfered with their political and social agenda. But their reasons for demanding unquestioning worship of this theory are not based on good science or sound good scientific principles and primarily political expediency.

Some of the earliest clues there was a problem with this theory is the fact the most accurate means of taking surface temperatures were rejected by global warming proponents in favor of one KNOWN for a fact to be less accurate, the fact we know CO2 levels were many times higher in the past without a climate change at all -as well as THE most important one of all and THE one that should have forced even someone with minimally normal intelligence to stop and think about it! We don't know why the earth entered or left ANY previous climate change. Not a single one. So the notion that we know all we need to know NOW and unquestioningly know EVERYTHING about what will cause the next and IMPENDING climate change, the insistence that we have all the answers we will ever need to know, no further challenges to this theory allowed and all who refuse to worship at this altar are to be treated as heretics -was some real bullshit on someone's part.

The real question all along on the theory of global warming in light of this should have been WHO BENEFITS by this theory and the demands it not be challenged or questioned and who benefits by treating it as a religion that requires faith instead of PROOF. And when you do find out who benefits, it turns out it is the very same people guilty of fabricating, doctoring, destroying and lying. Not even a four year child should be surprised by that.

 

[syrenn]

I will say first off that I do not believe in god or a son

However as to scientifically proving that there was a jesus, most likely not. It is most likely that there was a woman mary who had a child. It is possible that there was a man who was a good person who really pissed the romans off. Not a hard thing to do at the time. Proving the divinity of a good man is faith based and that's all there is to it. You believe or you don't.

But prof that "this" is his body, or "this" is his cross is impossible.

 

[standunited]

Can Science Prove Christ Really Existed? Yes, its already been done. If you live like their is no God, you'd better be right!

 

[Madeline]

standunited, this thread is in the Science Forum for a reason. It asks questions about the level of proof needed by anthroplogists and other scientists as to the existence of a particular human. This thread is not about religion. Those are posted in the Religion Forum. Do you see the trend here?

And when referencing a point, the word you need is "there". "Their" is a possessive.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

To the title of the OP: No.

Understand as I write this that I myself am a Christian. I've reexamined my faith many times over the course of my life. As a conscious decision I have decided to believe that Christ did live, die, and return to life some 2000 or so years ago.

But understand, there isn't likely to ever be real proof of Christ outside the witness accounts left behind in the Gospels. Christ was resurrected, so there won't be a body. A close reading of the book of Acts reveals that Christ was hardly the only person claiming to be the Messiah of prophecy, and as such he likely wouldn't have garnered much attention from the Romans. The ruling elite of Israel counted Christ as an enemy and annoyance and likely would not have given him much attention in their own histories. His father and mother were quite literally nobodies and his earliest followers were the poor and uneducated. Not exactly the kind to leave behind extensive documentation.

My advice to those who scoff due to lack of proof, or require proof to believe is this: The Bible itself makes it clear that God isn't really that interested in providing proof. He's interested in those that will believe in faith. You will almost certainly never find definitive proof that God does or does not exist because for God, that isn't the point. It is, was, and always will be about faith.