Scientific Proof that Jesus is the Messiah

[robert68]

In general, yeah it is neither scientific nor is it proof.

It's all communication and what people want words to mean, I suppose; but it is within a section on religion.

Political/religious propaganda is science to some people.

 

[erowe1]

Even the ressurection is a contemporary religious reframe of the winter solstice. You know?

What do you base that on?

Here's our earliest record of what Jesus's followers believed about the resurrection from 1 Corinthians 15. Is there anything here that suggests that they're reframing the winter solstice?

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast [a]the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to [c]James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as [d]to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, [e]and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

 

[UtahApocalypse]

Using the bible to "prove" anything about religion is self serving and cannot in anyway be proof as the bible itself cannot not be proven

(I fully know that there will be huge argument about that)

 

[erowe1]

Using the bible to "prove" anything about religion is self serving and cannot in anyway be proof as the bible itself cannot not be proven

(I fully know that there will be huge argument about that)

What are some things that can be used to prove things?

 

[erowe1]

Yeah, I don't know. Was just thinking out loud, I suppose. Have the house to myself for a couple of days. Bored.

Forgot to add the origin of the Virgin Mary story. This one works on a forum, I suppose. http://www.new-wisdom.org/cultural_history1/14-europe/astrology_and_virgin_birth.htm

Here's what's at that link:

It has been said that: “The adventures of Jesus Christ are all depicted among the stars.” The Romans saw him as an equivalent of the sun gods Mithras and Sol Invictus, with whom he became identified and whom he eventually replaced.
•The sign of Virgo has in it a very bright star, named Spica, which was represented by an ear of corn (or stalk of wheat) (which is what the name of the star means). Hence, in the Hindu and Egyptian zodiacs, the sign of Virgo is often represented as a maiden with an ear of corn/stalk of wheat.
•In the centuries ending the first millennium BC, the precession of the equinoxes led to a curious celestial event that occurred in both 11 BC and 3 BC.
•The star Spica, which might be considered the child of the cosmic virgin, rose on the Eastern horizon at the autumnal equinox (at the end of the sign of Virgo) at the same time as the sun. So it would have seemed to watchers on earth as if the son of the virgin (the grain symbolizing the bread of life) had risen as the glorious sun. Hence, the virgin had given birth to a god.
•On some of these occasions, the morning star Venus, Queen of Heaven, rose in the constellation of Virgo before the sun. So the sun would seem to be rising as the child of the virgin Queen of Heaven over the eastern horizon.
•In many countries the sun would appear out of the sea. In Latin, the word for “sea” is “mare,” which many researchers cite as the origin of the name Maria or Mary.
•In some ancient zodiacs, the sign of Virgo was represented as a tree with branches. The star Spica would have been an offshoot or a branch of the tree. The word Nazarene come from the word Neser, meaning “a branch.” The messianic name Shiloh, which puzzled scholars for a long time, also means “branch,” and would therefore refer to the star Spica in the sign of Virgo. When the branch or son of the virgin appears as the light of the east, then the messiah would have been born.

From these astrological and astronomical events may very well have come the words of the Magi: “We have seen his star in the east, and have come to worship him.” (Matthew 2:8)

So, following that hypothesis, the story about the Magi in Matthew 2 is genuine history, and they really did come to Bethlehem in response to an astrological phenomenon (the article doesn't give any hints as to why Bethlehem). And this really did happen around the time that the historical Jesus really was born. In other words, according to your own source, the origin of the virgin Mary story is that the story itself is actual history.

Obviously, the alternative hypothesis that Christians some time after the death of Jesus invented the story of his virgin birth in order to coincide with an astronomical event that by then will have happened several decades in the past, even decades before any of them will have ever heard of Jesus, is untenable.

As for the opening line of that article, I don't personally agree. But my opinion on that is not strong. There is a possibility that the one who created the heavens, and who gave us the stars for signs, gave us constellations and astronomical events that would be used to corroborate the revelation of Himself that He was going to give us in the incarnation of His Son, Jesus Christ. And if this is so, then it would only strengthen the veracity of the Gospel, not weaken it.

 

[sevin]

Of course!

I assume you are implying that they made things up in the NT in order to fulfill the prophecies of the OT or that things were planned intentionally in order to 'make' Jesus fulfill those prophecies?

Well, it's definitely a more plausible explanation.

The students carefully weighed all the factors, discussed each prophecy at length, and examined the various circumstances which might indicate that men had conspired together to fulfill a particular prophecy. They made their estimates conservative enough so that there was finally unanimous agreement even among the most skeptical students.

Exactly how did they come up with these numbers? How do you calculate the odds of an event in history occurring?

 

[erowe1]

How do you calculate the odds of an event in history occurring?

A decent answer to a question like this exceeds what could be given in one of these little forum boxes. But if it's a sincere question, then I recommend this book by Oxford University professor of philosophy, Richard Swinburne.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Resurrection-Incarnate-Richard-Swinburne/dp/0199257469/

 

[Neil Desmond]

Mathematics is a science-one of the most logical (due to its highly deductive nature), as well. Probability is a branch of mathematics (sometimes considered a branch of calculus, but not really, IMO).

ETA: Mathematical proofs are usually considered the most valuable proofs, as falsification of inaccurate data is so easy and the method so rigorous and time-tested.

What I mean is that science is about being able to observe and repeat something. I'm referring to the anecdotal stuff, not the math stuff.

 

[TER]

Well, it's definitely a more plausible explanation.

I think ultimately it comes down to either 1) there was a grand conspiracy including thousand of people who were willing to undergo torture and death in order to propagate a lie they knew was a lie OR 2) Jesus is the Messiah Who was prophecized and fulfilled those prophecies. After careful study and much prayer, I have chosen to believe the latter. Either choice we choose requires faith.

Exactly how did they come up with these numbers? How do you calculate the odds of an event in history occurring?

I think the original paper describes how they came up with the numbers, which were then sent to be reviewed by a Committee of the American Scientific Affiliation and that 'upon examination, they verified that his calculations were dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented.'

 

[TER]

What I mean is that science is about being able to observe and repeat something. I'm referring to the anecdotal stuff, not the math stuff.

Neil, scientific investigations of past phenomenons does not require the ability to reproduce the event in order to make educated, observed and probability based determinations about the event. Examples can easily be found in the fields of cosmology, astronomy, and geology.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What I mean is that science is about being able to observe and repeat something. I'm referring to the anecdotal stuff, not the math stuff.

Forensic scientists don't have to recreate an event exactly to understand it. Forensic sciences are among the most reliable because they are primarily deductive and require vigorous methodology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_science

 

[Neil Desmond]

Neil, scientific investigations of past phenomenons does not require the ability to reproduce the event in order to make educated, observed and probability based determinations about the event. Examples can easily be found in the fields of cosmology, astronomy, and geology.

I think what you're referring to here is about having theories about an event that may have occurred. In fields like cosmology, astronomy, and geology, they do make observations of the presence of things and patterns to come up with theories, but a theory that an event may have occurred is not the same as proof that it did occur. The only thing that scientists can really prove are things like math and logic. Math and logic are not events, they're just the tools that scientists use, along with their observations of events, to try to repeat something or figure out when or how to expect something to happen. A scientist's job is in essence to explain what/when/where something might be found with a very high level of reliability.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I think what you're referring to here is about having theories about an event that may have occurred. In fields like cosmology, astronomy, and geology, they do make observations of the presence of things and patterns to come up with theories, but a theory that an event may have occurred is not the same as proof that it did occur. The only thing that scientists can really prove are things like math and logic. Math and logic are not events, they're just the tools that scientists use, along with their observations of events, to try to repeat something or figure out when or how to expect something to happen. A scientist's job is in essence to explain what/when/where something might be found with a very high level of reliability.

No. Please see my above post regarding forensics.

 

[FSU63]

Where is this "scientific proof"?

 

[Neil Desmond]

Forensic scientists don't have to recreate an event exactly to understand it. Forensic sciences are among the most reliable because they are primarily deductive and require vigorous methodology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_science

I don't think there's anything different or contradictory to what I'm arguing.

 

[sevin]

I think ultimately it comes down to either 1) there was a grand conspiracy including thousand of people who were willing to undergo torture and death in order to propagate a lie they knew was a lie OR 2) Jesus is the Messiah Who was prophecized and fulfilled those prophecies. After careful study and much prayer, I have chosen to believe the latter. Either choice we choose requires faith.

People die for false beliefs all the time. Just look at Muslims. It's more likely that these people were simply fanatics than that Jesus was the son of the creator of the universe (assuming there is a creator).

I think the original paper describes how they came up with the numbers, which were then sent to be reviewed by a Committee of the American Scientific Affiliation and that 'upon examination, they verified that his calculations were dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented.'

I don't think you got my point. I'm saying it's impossible to calculate the odds of historical events occurring. Whatever numbers you begin with would have to be made up.

 

[erowe1]

People die for false beliefs all the time.

But when they do, they genuinely believe them to be true. They don't die for something they actually know to be false, and just pretend to think is true.

In the case of the resurrection of Jesus, we have multiple people who died for the belief that they knew Jesus personally before his death, saw him die in a public spectacle, and then buried, and then an empty tomb, and then saw, heard, and touched the resurrected, walking, talking, eating, and miracle working Jesus. They did not come up with this as a conspiracy, or they wouldn't have followed their own lie to the death. Nor did they hallucinate. Nor did Jesus not really die.

Everything in the foregoing sentence is indisputable historical fact without which Christianity could never have come into existence.

 

[sevin]

But when they do, they genuinely believe them to be true. They don't die for something they actually know to be false, and just pretend to think is true.

In the case of the resurrection of Jesus, we have multiple people who died for the belief that they knew Jesus personally before his death, saw him die in a public spectacle, and then buried, and then an empty tomb, and then saw, heard, and touched the resurrected, walking, talking, eating, and miracle working Jesus. They did not come up with this as a conspiracy, or they wouldn't have followed their own lie to the death. Nor did they hallucinate. Nor did Jesus not really die.

Everything in the foregoing sentence is indisputable historical fact without which Christianity could never have come into existence.

So how many firsthand accounts of the resurrection are there? I thought all we had were the four gospels which of course could have been written by anybody.

 

[Natural Citizen]

So how many firsthand accounts of the resurrection are there? I thought all we had were the four gospels which of course could have been written by anybody.

You can witness the "resurrection" during every winter solstice. Just as the ancients did. They understood the realignment of the Sun to be evident that spring was near and that new life was near. Spring. Bada bing...

As I was saying to TER, the Three Kings, as they were known by the ancients and even understood to be today are simply Orions Belt. It points to Sirius on December 24th of every year. On December 25 they align to point to the Sun rise. This is why these "Three Kings "follow" the star in the east in order to locate the sunrise. The birth of "the Son", as it is accepted in moder times. And, of course, we also discused the constellation virgo as well. Or "The Virgin Mary", as it is today.

so, anyhoo. From the summer solstice to the winter solcstice the days get shorter and the crops die. From the western hemisphere the sun appears to move south and very scarce. To the ancients, this symbolized death. The death of the Sun. Buy the 22nd or 23rd the Sun was gone because it made it to it's lowest point in the sky. But then it stops moving south for three days in the area of the southern cross or "crux" constellation.

After this time...on December 25th, the Sun moves 1 degree North forshadowing loger days, warmth and spring. New life.

So...the Sun died on the cross, was dead for three days, and resurrected...born again.

Now, to be fair, "Jesus" isn't the only "Sun" God through the ages to share the crucifiction, three day death and resurrection concept. Many civilizations through the ages have had some Jesus figure to symbolize the Suns movement back into the northern hemisphere and thus salvation.

Of course, they don't celebratate the resurrection until the spring equinox or "Easter" because this is when the Sun officially over powers the darkness. Or "evil" as it is said today.The days become longer and through spring new life emerges.

12 deciples? These are simply the 12 constellations of the Zodiac, who Jesus, being the Sun travels with, as observed by the ancients. 12 tribes of Israel, 12 Great Patriarchs, 12 Sons of Jacob and so forth and so forth....

Many churhes display the Pagan adaptation of the cross of the zodiac. It is not a symbol of christianity. At least not historically.

Sorry for mispellings and whatnot. If I don't hurry up on long posts, the site signs me out and I lose all that was typed.

 

[TER]

So how many firsthand accounts of the resurrection are there? I thought all we had were the four gospels which of course could have been written by anybody.

Erowe is spot on with his post. Sevin, there are four gospel accounts that have been written and passed down but there were thousands upon thousands who witnessed Jesus Christ and believed in Him while He walked the earth. The gospels did not just spring up in a vacuum. When they were written, there already was a church of thousands of believers who were baptized in the faith. What was written in the gospels only wrote down what these people already knew and were willing to testify with their very lives.