Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum The existence of Christ?

Did Christ REALLY exist? Any proof? Whaddya think?

proof, not really any thing that scientist call proof. someone existed then, and there is no reason to not call him christ. then again santa exist, just go to any mall around mid december or ask a young child, but proving that he exist is not something that an adult would try to do. at least not a sane one. da would you care to try?

Jesus Christ, or someone we refer to with that name, definitely existed and definitely lived in and around the area we now know as Israel/Palestine.

What is unclear is whether there was anything more remarkable about his "real" life than that of any other Middle Eastern trouble-maker.

You might want to check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
it is essentially devoid of theological nonsense.

esa asks;

"Did Christ REALLY exist? Any proof? Whaddya think?

You do not seem to be very concerned with the issue as I read your question.

Mr Morgan has provided an educational link for you.

Christ's existence does not appear to be in doubt. What his existence means is another matter altogether. All we can do now is argue about the issue. The witnesses are all long gone and what they left for us to weigh is conflicting. I personally have a problem with people referring to Jesus as God. If I was to approach the subject as objectively as I can I would start with the premise that he may have been the son of God (at best), because it does not make any sense to me God would give in to a bunch of bearded self ordained representatives of his and permit his execution. So what's left?
We have alleged staements by eye witnesses that support not only Christs existence but his ability to work wonders. There is not much rebuttal that survives from the people that were there at the time he was. On this basis his existence and his importance should carry the day and therefore the "evidence" says yes.

Even though that would appear to be somewhat logical it does not convince me becaused I am not impartial and no amount of historical data is going to be convincing to closed minds.
jjw

Hi jjw,

I agree with you. And I would also ask what meaning did Jesus really attribute to his own existence himself?
I've been looking into The Gospel of Thomas and also translations of The Beatitudes from Aramaic. And in both these works, it seems to me Jesus himself had a different spin on his own existence and the nature of God than the Church pushes.

http://www.gospelthomas.com/

http://soundstruestore.stores.yahoo.net/interview-klotz.html

You are correct Justine Jesus Christ Superstar is an invention used to control people's behavious. They are sold a saviour the same way they are sold a war or toothpaste: Lots of advertising and jingles (sometimes even Jingle Bells).

Hi Justine:

I am sure your are as sincere in your research as Morgan is blatantly harsh.

I wonder why people wish to debate subjects they know can not be answered?
jjw

Same reason people make comments about virgin births and resurrections when they know there is not a single shred of supporting evidence.

its called faith for the reason they don't need supporting evidence. how about proving that George Washington actually crossed the Delaware. there is no supporting evidence, only the evidence of what people said in letters, and things like that. for all anyone can prove, he stayed on the other side and sent his troops in, then went over to claim the victory. suggest that to any historian, or any stanch supporter of that era, and you'll be lucky to keep your eyes in your head. some people have to believe it christ, no matter what the evidence will prove or not. That is their right. if you are really a vet, like you have claimed, then you know that that right was earned by people like you and me.

dehammer wrote:
"its called faith for the reason they don't need supporting evidence."

And based on that "faith" you threaten your children with eternal damnation burning in hell. I'd want a bit more proof something was real before using it to scare small children.

It is easy to prove GW crossed the Deleware. There are original written letters from multiple people written at the time of the incident. And not one edited by a Roman ruler or Pontiff after the fact. There is nothing to support your faith except brainwashing.

1) its not my faith, but it is a real one. i dont see you having any kind of faith what so ever in anything, including yourself.

2) all those who wrote letters about GW crossing the delaware were followers of him (a successful army), just as the deciples were followers of christ, so letters written by them are the same as letters written by the disciples. the only difference is that christ claimed to be the son of god so that is what the letters of the bible claim, while GW claimed to be a good general, so that is what the letter about him said.

3) those with the faith, have the proof they need in their hearts, something that i can understand you not understanding.

dehammer wrote:
"those with the faith, have the proof they need in their hearts"

So do people who have been tortured:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

What is done to children is precisely what is described in this definition.

the difference is two and both are major.

1) no one forces them to stay with that.

2) no one forces them to listen to it. those who are tortured are.

I recieved the precise type of 'indocturnating your discussing, yet, when i was only lightly exposed to a completely different faith, i had not the slightest problem changing. the main difference is that i can see the evidence of my faith, and no one tells me i have to take it without question.

This is warped. It has nothing whatsoever to do with stockholm syndrome except maybe in cases where parents are religious AND abusive.

What evidence do you have to suggest that children brought up in religious families suffer from stockholm syndrome, or is it okay to conveniently forget the scientific approach and just spout your unsupported views when it suits your cause?

I know so many children that have rejected their parents faith (including my two younger brothers and one sister). Children are far more able to come to their own conclusions than you give them credit for.

Blacknad.

dehammer wrote:
"1) no one forces them to stay with that."

Who is "them"? No one forces the torturer to torture a victim. They do it because they can justify it through rationalization ... it is for the better good. It is for their own good. The end justifies the means.

dehammer wrote:
"2) no one forces them to listen to it. those who are tortured are."

I really do wish English was your first language. What does this mean? Those being tortured are free to stop the torture and walk out or that young children in their parent's home are free to leave anytime they wish?

Blacknad wrote:
"This is warped. It has nothing whatsoever to do with stockholm syndrome except maybe in cases where parents are religious AND abusive."

Thanks for returning and it has everything to do with it. The parallels are substantial.

In both cases there is a dominant party with power of life-and-death over the subject. The subject relies upon the dominant party for food, health care, etc. Thus, with time and repitition, they come to identify with the dominant person.

Give me any child from any background and I can turn them into a believer in any sect of any religion given access from age 0 to age 13.

Whether what I tell them to believe is true is irrelevant to the fact that they will become a true believer.

Sunday school is not an accident. And neither is the fact that there is a Jewish country, there are Christian countries, and there are Moslem countries. And while we are reasonably successful integrating black, white, and brown there is a zero probability that Israel will let its majority become Moslem. That Saudi Arabia will let its majority become Christian. etc. etc. etc.

Open your eyes Blacknad. The truth is staring you in the face. You are a member of the religion that had access to influence you. You are not a Sikh or a Jane nor do you practice Shinto.

man, you really are twisted. we are discussing victims and you making it look like the predators are victims of the ones they prey on.

maybe you should learn to read for content. oh, yea that would mean you could not create an argument out of nothing.

just in case you really are too mental to understand what has been said, ill go back over what was said. you claimed that religion tortured the children into believeing their parents beliefs. I said there was no one forcing them to listen to them. those who are tortured are not allowed to leave.

Ive had a stroke that makes it occasionally hard to understand others, whats your excuse.

dehammer wrote:
"man, you really are twisted. we are discussing victims and you making it look like the predators are victims of the ones they prey on."

Obviously English is not your primary language as that is not what I wrote. When you don't understand the language ask for clarification.

dehammer wrote:
"you claimed that religion tortured the children into believeing their parents beliefs. I said there was no one forcing them to listen to them."

Absolute nonsense. No one forces children to listen to their parents? On what planet were you born?

i understand it, and i also know what you wrote, and the way you wrote it. what you meant might not have been what you wrote, but that is what was there. perhaps you should read what you write for content before you hit the send button.

I was born on earth, and i have also heard a lot of parents complain that children don't listen to them. I have also know of many children that rejected their parents religion.

what planet did you fall off of. certainly not earths or our civilization. children have been refusing to listen to their parents for, I'm guessing, about 8 thousand years. i guess that because that is how long man has been civilization. give or take your definition of civilization.

dehammer wrote:
"I have also know of many children that rejected their parents religion."

The percentage of children that grow up to be members of a religion other than their own (and I don't mean minor denominational changes such as Lutheran to Anglican) has been published. Look it up. We are not interested in your self-serving anectodal observations when serious research has been published.

I'll give you a hint ... it is a very small number.