RE: Is there a scientific basis for Jesus Christ?
Alright, no. This is fucking retarded. I want to believe this is an elaborate troll and you're just posting this to get replies from people who think you're an idiot.
First of all, there's no evidence Jesus was real.
Second, there's no evidence he raised anyone from the dead.
Third, WHY WOULD INHERITANCE MATTER AT ALL? What the hell makes you think the holy spirit would pass down special holy genes? Are you implying the holy spirit ejaculated holy sperm inside the virgin mary? Because that's how genes are passed down, through sperm and eggs. Most Christians believe Jesus was conceived through some kind of magic, not literal holy jizz. When we're talking about spooky spirit pregnancy it's stupid to assume it would work just like a normal pregnancy.
Fourth, if sin is just disobeying the ten commandments, does that mean punching your neighbor in the face for no reason is totally cool? Because that's not listed. There's thou shalt not kill, but no thou shalt not maim.
Fifth, if Jesus is here to save us from chaos, why is there always so much drama at church?
And finally... THERMODYNAMICS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. YOU CAN'T COMPARE SIN TO ENTROPY. PLEASE GO BACK TO SCHOOL. You don't even know what science is.
OK, if you're discounting Christ, you have to discount about half the historical figures you can name. When it comes to ancient sourcing, mention of someone 30-40 years after their death is considered amazingly close. We have less than 0.00001% of the documents and records of the era, so sourcing of ancient figures is always difficult. There are entire kings, emperors and pharaohs we don't have record of until a century after their rule, yet no one says "oh they didn't exist" because the people who study that know how ancient sourcing works. There are battles that aren't recorded until nearly 200 years after they took place.
Some places aren't mentioned once in any sources we can find, yet seem to have been major ports. The city of Chester in the UK was the biggest roman settlement during their occupation and it had an absolutely huge building at it's center that we honestly are baffled by. Evidence has been found of hugely lavish homes and the river in the city seems to have been the biggest port in the UK. The thing is, no one outside of history buffs knows about Chester and it's position in the Roman Empire and it's very very rarely talked about. Why? Because we have one mention of it in all the sources of the era, and it's thought that mention may actually be referring to Manchester not Chester.
By the logic of "Christ didn't exist", nor did Chester. Christ existed - really that's consider a fact among 99.9% of historians and scholars. That 0.01% is very interesting, but even they acknowledge that their argument has flaws. The idea of Christ not existing is born of ignorance of how historical scholarship works - and you're accusing this poster of ignorance towards science. I don't mean this offensively, I'm just telling you that you're accusing this poster of something you're inadvertently demonstrating yourself.
Hello, where did Jesus claim to be the "son" of God? Is it because he was born without a father? But, then Adam would have more right to be the "son" of God because he had not father and no mother. This is only logical. Furthermore, in the Bible God states that "Israel is my son, even my first born", Ex.4:22. So, where is Jesus? Is this not a misunderstanding of the position of Jesus? Yet, in Genesis 6:2-4, God talks about the "sons of God". I think "son" of God, in the context of that time, means a righteous person, a Godly person because there are other statements in the Bible where "son" of God is also mentioned. However, I do believe in Jesus, son of Mary, revere him and love him with ALL my heart. Also, I do believe that he was a REAL person, mighty, powerful and a righteous man of God.
I'm curious. What would you count as evidence?
You want a CNN interview with him or something?
How about a DNA sample and an FBI dossier containing all his intercepted emails?
What exact kind of evidence from the first century could there be that you would not discount the same way.
We've got every shred of the "emails" of people who knew Jesus well preserved in 5600 manuscripts from all over the Mediterranean and they all say the same thing.
Inheritance matters because prophecy foretold that Jesus would be a descendant of King David. The people who knew Jesus certify that he was "of the house and lineage of David". You can trace that lineage back through Mary genetically or back through his "stepfather" Joseph legally.
The ten commandments are derived from the Greatest Commandment, as Jesus explained:
Then the Levites went on to derive hundreds of other laws to fill in more details for people who couldn't figure out how to regulate their behavior from first principles.
Christians are expected to derive their behavior from those first principles - "That we love one another."
Few of us do, but that is what is expected of us.