Scientific Proof that Jesus is the Messiah

[osan]

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.

Ho... talk about logic fail. You presuppose thousands of people had to be involved when in fact at most only a small handful are needed. In a day where communications were slow and tedious when compared with today's modes, the ability to perpetrate a well intended fraud was spectacular with the right brains behind it.

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.'

The calculational methods and the numbers they yield are meaningless if the underlying assumptions upon which they are based are not right.

Accept the right assumptions and I can readily prove to you beyond any breakage that 1+1=3.

In science as used to be taught in computer science: GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. Science is but a tool. Use it incorrectly and you get bad results. I will add further that there are entire classes of considerations to which the applications of science is unsuitable. This happens to be one of them.

 

[TER]

Again, believe what you will. You have chosen to believe it was a lie and a scheme. I have chosen otherwise. Both require faith. Best of luck to both of us!

 

[TER]

If you're going to take the number of prophecies the Bible said were fulfilled by Jesus to be true (and that they actually happened), you might as well say that Jesus is the Messiah because the Bible said so.

However, that's not scientific proof. It's like saying Harry Potter isn't a wizard because the Harry Potter books say so, but because of all the magic he performs.

Jesus made the prophecies true. It wasn't the Bible which made them true. And a mere 8 prophecies which he fulfilled would require you to fill the state of Texas 2 feet in silver dollars and blindfolded pick out the one marked coin on your first attempt. But Jesus did not fulfill only 8, but hundreds! Proof enough for me and my little brain!

 

[erowe1]

Ho... talk about logic fail. You presuppose thousands of people had to be involved when in fact at most only a small handful are needed. In a day where communications were slow and tedious when compared with today's modes, the ability to perpetrate a well intended fraud was spectacular with the right brains behind it.

Paul said there were hundreds at one time who saw the risen Jesus and could still be asked about it when 1 Corinthians was written.

Also, if that were a fraud, how would it have been well-intended?

And, if it were a fraud, why would the very people who knew it was false die for the belief that it was true?

 

[erowe1]

If you're going to take the number of prophecies the Bible said were fulfilled by Jesus to be true (and that they actually happened), you might as well say that Jesus is the Messiah because the Bible said so.

However, that's not scientific proof. It's like saying Harry Potter isn't a wizard because the Harry Potter books say so, but because of all the magic he performs.

Let's say it's true that Jesus fulfilled prophecies that were written in a collection of books that had all been written hundreds of years before his life, and then his followers who thought there was something significant about that decided to revere all those ancient books as something special.

It seems like what you're saying is that, these fulfilled prophecies wouldn't count as anything on account of their being in this group of books that Jesus's followers revered.

So, the only way Jesus fulfilling prophecies could count for evidence of anything would be if Jesus's own followers never came to revere the books that had the prophecies that he fulfilled?

Is that your position?

 

[otherone]

So, the only way Jesus fulfilling prophecies could count for evidence of anything would be if Jesus's own followers never came to revere the books that had the prophecies that he fulfilled?

The books selected corroborated the dogma, the books deliberately omitted do not. The books selected are either "divinely" inspired, or simply constituents of "divine" circular reasoning. I suppose it depends on one's religion.

 

[erowe1]

The books selected corroborated the dogma, the books deliberately omitted do not. The books selected are either "divinely" inspired, or simply constituents of "divine" circular reasoning. I suppose it depends on one's religion.

First of all, the main books that the earliest Christians appealed to for prophecies of Jesus were the same books that were already the Scriptures of Israel before the time of Christ, and the same ones that are still in use today by Jews who do not believe in Jesus. I'm not sure what kind of deliberate omission you have in mind, but it sounds like something from the Da Vinci code.

Second of all, you're just rewording exactly what I said. Obviously we're not talking about a claim that every book that has ever been written contains prophecies about Christ, only that certain books from before the time of Christ did. Obviously, yes, the books that Jesus's followers would choose to emphasize would be those that did, and they would have revered them for that very reason.

So we're back to my question. Are you really saying that, in order for any evidence from fulfilled prophecies to count, it can't also be the case that Jesus's followers revered the books those fulfilled prophecies were in?

 

[trey4sports]

I prefer Aqua-Buddha personally.

 

[otherone]

First of all, the main books that the earliest Christians appealed to for prophecies of Jesus were the same books that were already the Scriptures of Israel before the time of Christ, and the same ones that are still in use today by Jews who do not believe in Jesus. I'm not sure what kind of deliberate omission you have in mind, but it sounds like something from the Da Vinci code.

Second of all, you're just rewording exactly what I said. Obviously we're not talking about a claim that every book that has ever been written contains prophecies about Christ, only that certain books from before the time of Christ did. Obviously, yes, the books that Jesus's followers would choose to emphasize would be those that did, and they would have revered them for that very reason.

So we're back to my question. Are you really saying that, in order for any evidence from fulfilled prophecies to count, it can't also be the case that Jesus's followers revered the books those fulfilled prophecies were in?

Ah. So Dan Brown and Hollywood invented the Dead Sea Scrolls, etal. Back to your question....you really don't see how circular your reasoning is? How is it "evidence" that your holy book sets up an expectation, and then, gasp, fulfills it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Book of Mormon use the same logic?

 

[otherone]

Paul said there were hundreds at one time who saw the risen Jesus and could still be asked about it when 1 Corinthians was written.

Also, if that were a fraud, how would it have been well-intended?

And, if it were a fraud, why would the very people who knew it was false die for the belief that it was true?

Some people don't believe the Bible provides an actual historical account, which is why other contemporary sources are sought. The fact that Christianity was usurped as the Roman State religion should create a little doubt all by itself, I mean, the State always has our souls in it's best interest, right?

 

[erowe1]

Ah. So Dan Brown and Hollywood invented the Dead Sea Scrolls, etal.

No. But so what? Are you just throwing around little phrases like "deliberately omit" and "Dead Sea Scrolls" and hoping nobody notices that you're not actually making a point?

Back to your question....you really don't see how circular your reasoning is? How is it "evidence" that your holy book sets up an expectation, and then, gasp, fulfills it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Book of Mormon use the same logic?

No, I don't.

It looks to me like you're honestly saying that your answer to my question is yes. You actually think that the fact that Christians revered the books that had prophecies that Jesus fulfilled disqualifies those fulfilled prophecies from counting.

Let's go with the Book of Mormon analogy, since you brought it up. Suppose the books of the Christian Bible, all of which had been around for centuries and centuries before the time of Joseph Smith, included prophecies that Joseph Smith fulfilled. And then suppose that Joseph Smith wrote about these prophecies in the Book of Mormon, and his followers pointed to those prophecies as evidence of a divine approval of Mormonism, and revered the books of the Christian Bible that had these prophecies. Somehow, according to your argument, the fact that Mormons would do that would somehow disqualify their argument? The only way for the argument to be valid would be if Mormons never actually revered the Christian Bible, thus essentially not making the argument in the first place?

 

[erowe1]

The fact that Christianity was usurped as the Roman State religion should create a little doubt all by itself, I mean, the State always has our souls in it's best interest, right?

If that's the case, those statist usurpers didn't do a very good job of usurping Christianity, especially if they manipulated the Bible (as I think you were getting at before, but I still can't tell if you actually had a point when you mentioned deliberate omission of things), since version of Christianity in the Bible we have is anti-Roman Empire.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Some people don't believe the Bible provides an actual historical account, which is why other contemporary sources are sought. The fact that Christianity was usurped as the Roman State religion should create a little doubt all by itself, I mean, the State always has our souls in it's best interest, right?

Originally, the various states in the US had official religions. Did that make those religions into State tools? Contemporaneous accounts suggest not. Religious people tend to act as a check against the State because their sense of right/wrong has nothing to do with the arbitrary whims of regimes.