Evidence for Jesus/Messiah

This question means to me: whose show do I like better?

Click to expand...

meh, I don't watch any of them.

Would you be so kind as to elaborate on that? ETA: That is to say, I could read enough into that statement that I know most of it would be wrong.

I think that extensive cultural, historical and linguistic knowledge of the period and region would be sufficient evidence that it was someone from that milieu. Supply that, and I think it's sufficient miracle to gain the necessary attention. From there I don't think further authentication is possible. To me the likely case is that many Biblical stories traditionally held sacred would be invalidated, and thereby the faithful would be split.

Beyond that, I don't think humanity needs a messiah, and if we don't need one then I don't think one can fill the role.

Zoroastrianism has three successive saviours: Hushedar, Hushedarmah and Saoshyant. The last leads humanity in a final battle against falsehood. I don't know that the world has seen the first two yet, but there are enough Zoroastrians in the world that they might recognise Saoshyant -- he's immaculately conceived, resurrects the dead, perfects their bodies and gets involved in an apocalyptic battle that melts the mountains like metal. He has a sun-like body, never takes nourishment from his mother, lives on vegetables for the first half-century or so of life, then water, then finally only 'spiritual food'.

That would be hard to miss, I imagine.

Ruv Draba said:

I think that extensive cultural, historical and linguistic knowledge of the period and region would be sufficient evidence that it was someone from that milieu. Supply that, and I think it's sufficient miracle to gain the necessary attention. From there I don't think further authentication is possible. To me the likely case is that many Biblical stories traditionally held sacred would be invalidated, and thereby the faithful would be split.

Click to expand...

To me that could just as well be an actor who extensively studied the culture, history and language of the time ... better yet have a child raised in a community set in that time (I can see the SCA being a big part of this, though it's even before their 'time'), so he ONLY knows those things of the time period, and truly believes himself to be The Messiah. Hmm, I'm sure it's been done before in various forms, but this could make a novel or a movie...

But presuming He is The Real Thing, I'd love to see Him on Sean Hannity's show on Fox News ("Tonight on my TV show: Jesus Christ. I'm so excited I'm totally giddy, I'm really grateful He agreed to be on. Hope you'll tune in.") just to watch Him tell Hannity where he's wrong.

The real messiah would have so many ways of being able to prove himself; he'd have insight into human nature and the workings of the universe that, by themselves, would seem like magic before any sort of divine touch causing actual magic.

His knowledge would be so vast and on so many different topics that he could convince even the most obscurely-versed skeptic of his divinity.

Also, his cell phone would have the pope's direct line. Proof positive right there.

benbradley said:

To me that could just as well be an actor who extensively studied the culture, history and language of the time ...

Click to expand...

I suspect that someone who'd had first-hand experience of the times could produce all manner of linguistic, cultural, historical, craft and political insights that, while surprising, would nevertheless prove correct. It'd be very hard to fake, I think.

But presuming He is The Real Thing

Click to expand...

The Real Thing presupposes the legitimacy of the texts, and then we have to work out which interpretation of the texts is legitimate... there's no real standard for such stuff. And there's no guarantee that the texts themselves are authentic or literal (so many of the stories resemble those of the Zoroastrian saviour Saoshyant, for instance). So if it were possible at all, I think we could get someone from the right place and time with the right historical knowledge (miracles optional) but I doubt we could get anything more definitive than that.

As for appearing on talk-shows, I think it would be every bit as challenging for a modern audience to make sense of the thoughts of man who lived 2,000 years ago, as it would for him to try to understand the sense behind some of our questions.

JimmyB27 said:

Surely either all of that stuff can be found out, in which case it would be easy to fake, or it can't be found out, in which case it would be very easy to fake, because we'd have no way of verifying it.

Click to expand...

History isn't just referencing what happened. It's knowledge discovery, which means we have to look at stuff and ask questions, guess answers and then look at other stuff to see whether the answers still make sense.

So say that there was a carpenter from ancient Nazareth. A carpenter would know the different kind of carpenter's tools and how they worked, what people made and how, what woods they used, where those woods came from, how they protected those woods from pests... that knowledge would be referenceable for the carpenter, while for the historian a lot of it's only inferable. A fraud could reference the same material as an historian, but when it came to the extra detail he'd have to make it up, and it would only be as good as his research. Ask enough questions, and you run off the end of the research... but if the person isn't a fraud, some answers will be surprising and new to historians. Then when they cross-check against other known facts, or when new facts emerge, it'll prove accurate.

JimmyB27 said:

Surely either all of that stuff can be found out, in which case it would be easy to fake, or it can't be found out, in which case it would be very easy to fake, because we'd have no way of verifying it.

Click to expand...

Not quite. A good example is language. Ancient languages can be studied and learned, but someone who did not grow up in that time will never know all the nuances of the language. As such, idioms, slang, grammar particularities unique to that language, etc. will never be known, nor will vague references to historical events that we are as of yet unaware be picked up and understood. You can learn Ancient Hebrew, but you will never be able to speak like an Ancient Israelite because you didn't grow up in that time period.

semilargeintestine said:

Not quite. A good example is language. Ancient languages can be studied and learned, but someone who did not grow up in that time will never know all the nuances of the language. As such, idioms, slang, grammar particularities unique to that language, etc. will never be known, nor will vague references to historical events that we are as of yet unaware be picked up and understood. You can learn Ancient Hebrew, but you will never be able to speak like an Ancient Israelite because you didn't grow up in that time period.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about this--it's circular. If you can know Hebrew as well as any scholar, then you ought to be able to fool the scholars. You might not fool a genuine ancient, but then, there aren't any around to call you on it.

Try a search for Secret Mark--it's a non-canonical gospel quoted in an ancient letter. It only exists in an eighteenth century copy--more accurately, in a single photograph of the supposed copy. It was seen only by one scholar, and appears to have been destroyed or hidden by monks who didn't like it. It's a yarn worthy of a Dan Brown novel.

The language is perfect, both of the letter, and the quote. The handwriting is convincing for a eighteenth century monk scribe. But loads and loads of scholars think it must be a fake because of the circumstances of its discovery, and its naughty content. Those who say its real claim no grad student could forge Greek well enough to fool them. Those who say its fake point to the bizarre circumstances of its discovery, and its salacious subject matter.

ChristineR said:

Try a search for Secret Mark--it's a non-canonical gospel quoted in an ancient letter. It only exists in an eighteenth century copy--more accurately, in a single photograph of the supposed copy. It was seen only by one scholar, and appears to have been destroyed or hidden by monks who didn't like it. It's a yarn worthy of a Dan Brown novel.

Click to expand...

That sounds like fun, ChristineR... but a document isn't the same as a person. A document is a single story, but a person is a source of many stories. For a person to be legitimate, every story they tell must check out. Not only that, the stories will all connect with each other and with external stories too. So initially, a good charlatan can fool a lot of people but over time well-informed people can usually work it out.

But individual bits of evidence -- apocrypha or piltdown man or whatever -- it's harder to work them out because you can't ask them questions about their own nature.

Williebee said:

I don't know, but my guess is, those with faith in Jesus would believe; some who desire to have faith would be swayed. Those without faith would not be convinced.

Pretty much like now.

Click to expand...

and back then.

The usual stuff.
"Please , Great One, give me all the answers, so that i'll be so knowledgeable i be bored outta me mind. but happy. but dumb. but happy"

I would ask him if you could smoke in heaven, if he said yes, then he's the real thing.

to above post

I've a vague memory of a story on the return of Jesus. Anyone know one?
Actually think it might have been one of those old comics 'weird stories' or something. Some of them were excellent. Got a load of them one day from a dying neighbour (1950/60 editions). remember my mother told me she threw them all out. i try not to think bout that too much...

ChristineR said:

I'm not so sure about this--it's circular. If you can know Hebrew as well as any scholar, then you ought to be able to fool the scholars. You might not fool a genuine ancient, but then, there aren't any around to call you on it.

Click to expand...

The problem with your example is that it's a letter, which is not what we're discussing. A person can spend months or years painstakingly making sure that the handwriting, grammar, etc. are all perfect and make sure to only include subjects scholars are aware of so that there is no chance of something looking funny.

A guy being asked questions on the spot and having to perform is just not going to be able to do that. There's no way to be able to do that without someone being able to say, "Hey, that doesn't seem quite right."

bigb said:

I would ask him if you could smoke in heaven, if he said yes, then he's the real thing.

Click to expand...

Depends on what he says they're smoking.

Ruv and semilarge--point is taken about the difference between a letter and a person, but presumably this person would spend months and months being coached and practiced. Imagine the person doing the best it's possible for a fraud to be. Secret Mark, if it is a forgery, is actually three forgeries--a letter, the gospel itself, and an eighteenth century copy.

ChristineR said:

Imagine the person doing the best it's possible for a fraud to be.

Click to expand...

Yes, but once you make your announcement all your claims become fixed, but research continues to develop. A fraud freezes himself in the knowledge of the day, and immediately, knowledge itself begins to diverge from that. A genuine claimant's claims are also frozen -- but in the knowledge to which research converges.

This also happens if a claim is not fraudulent but simply false. A great deal of ancient belief (religious and secular) has changed exactly because at the times the claims were made they weren't disprovable, then there were objections but the believers propped up their claims with more argument, then even those props were undermined. It is very hard to hold a false claim against constant research in the longer term. The claims that survive tend to either be provable, or neither provable nor disprovable.

Isn't this kind of like a discussion about reincarnation? We could just as easily be discussing the Dalai Lama!

AMCrenshaw said:

Isn't this kind of like a discussion about reincarnation? We could just as easily be discussing the Dalai Lama!

Click to expand...

Indeed... or any prophecy, miracle, or supernatural figure claimed to have appeared in our world.

In John chapter 6 there is a story about Jesus feeding 5000 with 2 fish and five barley loaves of bread. That would be something to see and it would be very convincing. But it was only the next day that many of those that ate from this meager meal and were satisfied turned away from Jesus and stopped following him. And the reason was because he started saying things they couldn't accept.

As long as we believe the message we'll believe the proof, when don't like the message there is no proof that will satisfy.

JimmyB27 said:

Nope. Look at the other replies, two to one atheist to Christian. And I only mentioned Christianity and Judaism because they are the only two I know of with Messiah myths.

Click to expand...

Totally missed this in the intervening months--sorry.

In my religion, it's up to the gods to prove to you that they're real, provided of course that they care if you think they're real or not. It's not a faith-based religion (it's action-based: you do the rites, you get the blessings), so belief doesn't matter diddle-squat. What that would entail, I don't know, since no god seems to care whether or not I believe in him/her. And I'm good with that.

I was raised Christian, so I know the popular tenets, but honestly never considered the concept of the second coming as anything real. I was taught it was your becoming more Christ-like and bringing his spirit back to Earth than someone coming down from the Heavens or a new child being born.

Guffy said:

As long as we believe the message we'll believe the proof, when don't like the message there is no proof that will satisfy.

Click to expand...

We have plenty of examples of "bad news" that people accepted with sufficient proof. Like the link between cigarettes and lung disease, for example. It's true that if we're delivering bad news (i.e. news folk don't want to hear), then the evidence needs to be solid. But it's not true that good evidence fails to persuade, given time and the opportunity to consider it.

The real problem is that people (politicians, evangelists and other folk with ideological agendas) try to peddle bad advice with bad evidence.

I think he'd have to do the Bruce Almighty thing - give me a chance to take the omnipotence for a spin. Just for a few minutes - enough for me to fix my credit rating, pad my bank acct a little, a *poof* a mansion, a few exotic cars and maybe a supermodel or two.

Then I'd believe. But I'd probably wouldn't have made the best impression.