Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest


Thiebear

Recommended Posts

All you need to know for WHY???? is in yellow.

Now lets ponder what would happen to said judge if he ordered someone to court to prove ALLAH was real. I'm guessing 1 less judge...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1967413,00.html#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=World

Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

From Richard Owen in Rome

AN ITALIAN judge has ordered a priest to appear in court this month to prove that Jesus Christ existed.

The case against Father Enrico Righi has been brought in the town of Viterbo, north of Rome, by Luigi Cascioli, a retired agronomist who once studied for the priesthood but later became a militant atheist.

Signor Cascioli, author of a book called The Fable of Christ, began legal proceedings against Father Righi three years ago after the priest denounced Signor Cascioli in the parish newsletter for questioning Christ’s historical existence.

Yesterday Gaetano Mautone, a judge in Viterbo, set a preliminary hearing for the end of this month and ordered Father Righi to appear. The judge had earlier refused to take up the case, but was overruled last month by the Court of Appeal, which agreed that Signor Cascioli had a reasonable case for his accusation that Father Righi was “abusing popular credulity”.

Signor Cascioli’s contention — echoed in numerous atheist books and internet sites — is that there was no reliable evidence that Jesus lived and died in 1st-century Palestine apart from the Gospel accounts, which Christians took on faith. There is therefore no basis for Christianity, he claims.

Signor Cascioli’s one-man campaign came to a head at a court hearing last April when he lodged his accusations of “abuse of popular credulity” and “impersonation”, both offences under the Italian penal code. He argued that all claims for the existence of Jesus from sources other than the Bible stem from authors who lived “after the time of the hypothetical Jesus” and were therefore not reliable witnesses.

Signor Cascioli maintains that early Christian writers confused Jesus with John of Gamala, an anti-Roman Jewish insurgent in 1st-century Palestine. Church authorities were therefore guilty of “substitution of persons”.

The Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius mention a “Christus” or “Chrestus”, but were writing “well after the life of the purported Jesus” and were relying on hearsay.

Father Righi said there was overwhelming testimony to Christ’s existence in religious and secular texts. Millions had in any case believed in Christ as both man and Son of God for 2,000 years.

“If Cascioli does not see the sun in the sky at midday, he cannot sue me because I see it and he does not,” Father Righi said.

Signor Cascioli said that the Gospels themselves were full of inconsistencies and did not agree on the names of the 12 apostles. He said that he would withdraw his legal action if Father Righi came up with irrefutable proof of Christ’s existence by the end of the month.

The Vatican has so far declined to comment.

THE EVIDENCE

The Gospels say that Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary in Bethlehem, grew up in Nazareth, preached and performed miracles in Galilee and died on the Cross in Jerusalem

In his Antiquities of the Jews at the end of the 1st century, Josephus, the Jewish historian, refers to Jesus as “a wise man, a doer of wonderful works” who “drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles”

Muslims believe Jesus was a great prophet. Many Jewish theologians regard Jesus as an itinerant rabbi who popularised many of the beliefs of liberal Jews. Neither Muslims nor Jews believe he was the Messiah and Son of God

Tacitus, the Roman historian who lived from 55 to 120, mentions “Christus” in his Annals. In about 120 Suetonius, author of The Lives of the Caesars, says: “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, Emperor Claudius expelled them from Rome.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reply to post1:

No only someone that went from practicing to militant atheist... kinda like the ex-smoker that goes militant ex-smoking. AND its not about no credibility but as the REASON for why he brought the case to begin with.

Reply to Code: Was basically stating its easy to Pick on Christianity. I thought Jesus is considered the son of God and or God himself depending on who you talk to. And Allah is considered a God also. Being a practicing heathen I don't have a lot of knowledge on that though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have thought as he has been through the priests training he would have had better knowledge of the historical merits than most.

Its easy to pick on christianity, its also usually easy to pick on atheists, hence my reply.

It opens a can of worms for sure but there is never going to be a clear ruling when arguing against faith as people are going to believe what they want to no matter what the outcome of the trial is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, how about the plantiff prove that Jesus did not exist is not the son of God. I mean, he seems to be the one with the problem, right? I know it is in Italy, and I'm ignorant on Italian law, but in the US, the burden of proof would be laid on the plantiff, not the defendant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reply to post1:

No only someone that went from practicing to militant atheist... kinda like the ex-smoker that goes militant ex-smoking. AND its not about no credibility but as the REASON for why he brought the case to begin with.

Reply to Code: Was basically stating its easy to Pick on Christianity. I thought Jesus is considered the son of God and or God himself depending on who you talk to. And Allah is considered a God also. Being a practicing heathen I don't have a lot of knowledge on that though.

Islam is not big in Italy if you haven't noticed. If this case happened in Saudi Arabia (lol that wouldn't be one less judge it would be one less plaintiff) then you would have a point

It is easy to pick on Islam and Christianity in general, they make the biggest claims and they open themselves up to more logical contradictions, but somehow I don't think that is what you are referring to.

Why wouldn't you want people to read the rest of the article? "all you need to know, is what I think you ought to know" :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, how about the plantiff prove that Jesus did not exist is not the son of God. I mean, he seems to be the one with the problem, right? I know it is in Italy, and I'm ignorant on Italian law, but in the US, the burden of proof would be laid on the plantiff, not the defendant.

The defendant made the claim when he criticized the plaintiff. Seems like a libel/slander case. Notice the word *like* I don't know how Italian law works, and I doubt anyone here does either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reply to Code: Was basically stating its easy to Pick on Christianity. I thought Jesus is considered the son of God and or God himself depending on who you talk to. And Allah is considered a God also. Being a practicing heathen I don't have a lot of knowledge on that though.

I understand what you mean, however, 1st, Christianity is easily the most common religion, although, I'd argue that many who say they are "Christian" don't "qualify" based on the criteria of other "christians", but anyway, it's easy to pick on Christians because they are the majority, particularly in italy, where I"m sure there are an overabundance of Catholics.

I'd say this should be more of a story if it originated in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proof is in the pudding as they say. The original Apostles of Christ wrote three of the Gospels

Matthew, Mark (dictated by Peter), and John. Luke used accounts from them as well. Later Christian writers, such as Iranaeus and Justin Martyr, drew most of their knowledge from disciples of the Apostles such as Polycarp firsthand.

My question to everyone who doubts the truth of the Gospels is this:

If the life, death, and Raising of Christ was a hoax or sham, such as the body being stolen instead of the Resurrection, why would the Apostles die excruciating deaths for their belief? Wouldn't they just run and it would die out?

All but one Apostle was violently killed, and that was John who was tossed into boiling oil, but survived unscathed and subsequently was exiled to Patmos where the Revelation was given to him.

The plaintiff should read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proof is in the pudding as they say. The original Apostles of Christ wrote three of the Gospels

Matthew, Mark (dictated by Peter), and John. Luke used accounts from them as well. Later Christian writers, such as Iranaeus and Justin Martyr, drew most of their knowledge from disciples of the Apostles such as Polycarp firsthand.

My question to everyone who doubts the truth of the Gospels is this:

If the life, death, and Raising of Christ was a hoax or sham, such as the body being stolen instead of the Resurrection, why would the Apostles die excruciating deaths for their belief? Wouldn't they just run and it would die out?

All but one Apostle was violently killed, and that was John who was tossed into boiling oil, but survived unscathed and subsequently was exiled to Patmos where the Revelation was given to him.

The plaintiff should read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.

All of what you just posted is debatable. There is no historical proof that Matthew wrote Matthew etc... Why do you have to prove the body was stolen? Before you do that, you have to prove there was a body to be stolen.

Not trying debate if Jesus existed or not, I for one believe he did, however, you're kidding yourself if you think it's easily proven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of what you just posted is debatable. There is no historical proof that Matthew wrote Matthew etc... Why do you have to prove the body was stolen? Before you do that, you have to prove there was a body to be stolen.

Not trying debate if Jesus existed or not, I for one believe he did, however, you're kidding yourself if you think it's easily proven.

I figured on a response such as this. THats why I added the note at the end about the book Case for Christ. It's written by an investigative jouranlist who happened to be an atheist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proving Jesus existed should not be hard ,proving him the Christ takes faith.

Faith is not proof, faith is the ABSENCE of proof. Therfor, it would be very very difficult to prove that Jesus existed. If you use thinkgs such as the NT, then you have glaringly obvious flaws and contradictions to every physical law known to man. It would not stand up in a court of law.

BTW, I do believe that Jesus existed, just that he was not the son of god, but a great philosopher. His death was used as an uprising for christianity, and he was given "godly" status based on stories and fables passed down from man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figured on a response such as this. THats why I added the note at the end about the book Case for Christ. It's written by an investigative jouranlist who happened to be an atheist.

If I remember correctly, the "Case for Christ" was a thesis that he existed, not that he was the son of god, but I may be mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Chomerics..

Proving that he existed is all it takes... You don't have to PROVE he was the son of God or God or whatever variation thereof..

Signor Cascioli’s contention — echoed in numerous atheist books and internet sites — is that there was no reliable evidence that Jesus lived and died in 1st-century Palestine apart from the Gospel accounts, which Christians took on faith. There is therefore no basis for Christianity, he claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All you need to know is in yellow? So you are saying because the judge is an atheist this has no credibility?

Um, I don't think the judge is an athiest. I think the plaintif is.

Although, what legal basis he has for the suit seems beyond my knowledge.

(And beyond my "care".)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you mean, however, 1st, Christianity is easily the most common religion, although, I'd argue that many who say they are "Christian" don't "qualify" based on the criteria of other "christians", but anyway, it's easy to pick on Christians because they are the majority, particularly in italy, where I"m sure there are an overabundance of Catholics.

I'd say this should be more of a story if it originated in the US.

Code are you saying that Catholics are not Christians because they are not

"born again"?

And what is "an Overabundance of Catholics" and yes I am a Catholic :redpunch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all he had to do is prove Christ existed, he should just show him the bible. I mean theres the same amount of proof Christ existed as Plato IMO, yet people dont doubt he existed. It doesnt sound like the Judge is saying prove he was the son of God.

BTW, I dont know why, but this thread got me thinking about the remake of Miracle on 34th Street. Where the lawyer circles IN GOD WE TRUST on the dollar bill and the judge goes on saying how its all faith and stuff. Just rambling on about a movie....sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Code are you saying that Catholics are not Christians because they are not

"born again"?

And what is "an Overabundance of Catholics" and yes I am a Catholic :redpunch:

I'm not saying that, But I can guarandamntee you that many "christians" feel that way.

Pat Robertson has said on his website and in public that methodists, presbetarians (sp?) and episcopalians (sp?) are all going to hell, they don't meet the "criteria" of being a christian.

I grew up in a baptist church and I know that that's how many of the people there felt.

Besides, I remember doing a poll a year or so ago asking about the definition of being a christian. It means different things to different people, but by definition, it's supposed to be the belief and acceptance of Jesus being the literal son of god that died for all of our sins. Not everyone thinks that is the sole definition. Specifically, I'm saying that out of the 70% or so of people in the US, that identify themselves as "christians" do not fit the definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all he had to do is prove Christ existed, he should just show him the bible.

So, does that mean Anakin Skywalker was real? I have the book...

I think the point is that while the Bible does exist, many of the accounts are not verifiable.

I don't think anyone is basing their salvation and hope for the afterlife on whether plato existed either.

In Plato's case, people read his works (did he write his own works? Because there is nothing documented from Jesus, everything is second hand) and use the info. IMO, that's where Jesus is important, not so much in believing in the fairytale, but understanding how he lived his life and the examples he was trying to establish, much of which goes completely over the head of the average right wing "christian".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread seems like it may become very interesting, I'm liking it already. One thing Code though is that the star wars books are known works of fiction, while the works of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle are documented by I believe Aristotle himself and by other people of the time.

Now with the case of the Bible, I agree, there is no verifiable evidence of some of the accounts.

However, isn't it the case that St. Peter's body is buried under the Vatican, or there are other relics all over like the Shroud of Turin, shouldnt these relics prove that Christ has existed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proof is in the pudding as they say. The original Apostles of Christ wrote three of the Gospels

Matthew, Mark (dictated by Peter), and John. Luke used accounts from them as well. Later Christian writers, such as Iranaeus and Justin Martyr, drew most of their knowledge from disciples of the Apostles such as Polycarp firsthand.

My question to everyone who doubts the truth of the Gospels is this:

If the life, death, and Raising of Christ was a hoax or sham, such as the body being stolen instead of the Resurrection, why would the Apostles die excruciating deaths for their belief? Wouldn't they just run and it would die out?

All but one Apostle was violently killed, and that was John who was tossed into boiling oil, but survived unscathed and subsequently was exiled to Patmos where the Revelation was given to him.

The plaintiff should read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.

So you're saying that all you have to do to prove your beliefs are true is die in some horrible manner? If so, there are quite a few Muslims in Paradise right now with 72 virgins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread seems like it may become very interesting, I'm liking it already. One thing Code though is that the star wars books are known works of fiction, while the works of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle are documented by I believe Aristotle himself and by other people of the time.

Now with the case of the Bible, I agree, there is no verifiable evidence of some of the accounts.

However, isn't it the case that St. Peter's body is buried under the Vatican, or there are other relics all over like the Shroud of Turin, shouldnt these relics prove that Christ has existed?

Plato, Aristotle etc... wrote their own writings, Jesus didn't. Had Jesus written the bible or the new testament, it might be a little different, but much of the new testament is based on Paul's writings about Jesus, yet he never met him, all of Paul's info was second hand.

Also, much of what is in the bible IS historical, but may be exaggerated as the stories were passed on over time. The 4 gospels were not even written until 65 years or more after Jesus's death.

The Shroud of Turin has never been proven to be the actual burial cloth of Jesus, there's probably more evidence that it is not.

One of the best books I've ever read on the bible is "Asimov's Guide to the Bible".

Sure, he's an atheist, but read the book. He doesn't bash christianity, he looks at each book of the bible and points out how it aligns with history. It's very facinating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...