Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

[grumpy old fart]

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

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”.

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

[shoelace414]

1. Christ probably did exist.

Whether or not he's God is the real question.

[pop goes the weasel]

8. no, Jesus may have existed

"Christ" is a title for the Messiah, it wasn't Jesus's last name. Whether a person thinks Jesus existed AND was/is the Christ is at the basis of Christianity.

Anyway, I'd like to see the priest's definitive proof of Jesus's existence, so what is put forth at the trial will be interesting. Maybe there will be some little known piece of indisputable evidence.

I personally think Jesus did exist, simply because it would have been odd for the original apostles to have made him up out of whole cloth, but that there is so little evidence about him that it is hard to know what is real about him and what is merely embellishment.

[baal]

2. Unsurprising

Doing good is very unpopular in this world. I feel sorry for the priest and feel like echoing Rodney King, "why can't we all just get along."
What ever happened to live and let live?

some times it'll even get you killed...
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=97581&ran=215175

[Ian David]

17. Well, the priest injected himself into a debate about historical facts

I don't see why he shouldn't be requried to back-up his opinions with facts.

If I stood in front of a church and said, "Baal from DU is an idiot because he denies the factual basis of The Flying Spaghetti Monster's visit to The Superbowl in 1983," then you'd have every right to tell me to prove the existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (or The Superbowl, I guess).

It's an odd sort of law that he's using to force the issue. I guess that he couldn't apply some sort of law against slandering the author, which in a way this was.

If someone is going to falsely denounce you for saying something, and if doing so damages you, then you should have legal redress for your grievences or they have to prove that they were factually correct.

If I told my church, "Baal from DU likes to eat live kittens," you'd have every right to either sue me or make me prove that you actually do eat live kittens.

In this case, he said, "This author is an evil heretic because he says Christ never existed," then I suppose that the author has the right to make him prove that Christ did exist.

[Realityhack]

23. Certain religious and opinion bases speach should be exempt.

For example if your church beleives that homosexuality is 'normal' you should have the right to beleive that and say it if you like (IMO) without having to prove it. Including the right to say that people arguig the oposite are 'bad' (again IMO). Attaching a public example seems fairly reasonable. The thing is we are not talking about a private person down the street who happend to be caught saying this or something but rather someone who entered the public debate willfuly. While there may be some technical legal ground in that particular legal system for this (hence judge has little choice) it seems to me that this is little more than a PR Stunt. Limmits on slander are good but you can easily go too far and limit free speach.

I think the key here is:

If someone is going to falsely denounce you for saying something


Fact is he DID say it. If its your opinion that making that statement is bad... then you should be able to voice that opinion.

In other words is more like if someone here said 'eating cats is cool' and you said 'x person is a bad person for saying eating cats is cool'

Its your opinion and you should have the right to express it.

[Ian David]

24. He was arguing history, not philosophy or faith. A falsifiable claim.

"Christ is the Messiah" is a matter of faith.

"Christ died in the year 33 AD" is a matter of history.

And if someone slanders me by saying I am mistaken about a matter of history, and I can show that their slander has damaged me, then I may have the right to sue them.

[Realityhack]

25. Ok... having some trouble here...

I can not find the specific statements that were made etc.

All I found was:
"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."

Which do not appear to be quotes but are both factualy true... said testemony may be wrong but it does exist.

It seems to me that it rests mainly on what exactly was said etc. However I do think that this may well cross the line in terms of being free to call someone a heritic. I should be able to say x is a heritic because he dosn't beleive the FSM is real even if thats a ludicrist claim. IMO that should be protected speach. I understand that under some systems of law it may not be but I think it *should* be.

[Ian David]

26. The key is that he renounced the author for saying Christ didn't exist

The priest renounced the author for making the historical argument that Christ didn't exist. It seems fair that if the priest is going to slander someone who says Christ didn't exist, that the priest should be able to prove that Christ did, in fact exist.

The important thing is that proving the existence of Christ is key to the argument of whether or not the author was slandered.

[Realityhack]

30. Um...

Thats not what I got out of the filing. I didn't see a complaint about slader at all. It says:
"...wishes to denounce the abuse that the Catholic Church commits by availing itself of its prestige in order to inculcate – as if being real and historical – facts that are really just inventions.
A plain example of such abuse, has been perpetrated by don Enrico Righi (parish priest of Borgoregio) when he had falsely sustained, in the parish gazette of St. Bonaventura in Borgoregio, ? 245 of March-April 2002, that the historic figure of Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary (two totally imaginary characters and therefore historically non existing); of having the same Jesus been born in the village of Bethlehm and of having grown up in Nazareth."

which seems to me to indicate that it is not about slander anyway.

But as I said... IMO If I say you are evil or bad or whatever for not beliving in the FSM that should be well within my right in a religios context... or heck any context. Thats just stating my opinion... which might be why they did not take that angle who knows.

anyway it seems silly to me givin the context etc. He said Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary in a church newsletter... thats like me saying the FSM is the son of the great pasta chef. The complaint seems to be their abouse of 'power' to make that statement. I think thats prity silly... I mean if a school teacher said it, fine, but a prist in a church newsletter? Honestly WTF!?!

[Realityhack]

28. Wait found it....

"A plain example of such abuse, has been perpetrated by don Enrico Righi (parish priest of Borgoregio) when he had falsely sustained, in the parish gazette of St. Bonaventura in Borgoregio, ? 245 of March-April 2002, that the historic figure of Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary (two totally imaginary characters and therefore historically non existing); of having the same Jesus been born in the village of Bethlehm and of having grown up in Nazareth."
-From the lawsuit filing

Looks like they may have a point under the italian laws. Perhapse even a quite strong point but... IMO it is still utter Bullshit. I do not think a minister should need to pre-pend every statement he makes with 'we beleive' or 'I beleive' or 'the church beleives' which it would seem would make all this legal (as them having that opinion is in fact true). Its a religious newsletter for fucks sake.

As I said. I think they have a legal point... I just don't think that is where the line on free speach should be drawn. It is one case where I think they should be a bit closer to the US version.

[mondo joe]

67. Why should they be exempt?

Really, why? Is it too much trouble to be accurate iin your speech? Is it too much trouble to be factual?

[Realityhack]

72. Because...

IMO it is very dangerous to limit speach that far. If someone wants to proclaim the FSM as real... and they have no proof... you think that should be illigal?

You can quite easily limit ANY speach the state does not like that way. Ex. The US tried to assinate x person (x has a lot of values in this case ;-)) state says it never happend... you get sued... State has 'proof' you are wrong etc.

I think you need to be extemely careful with that type of religious speach. I have little problem with truth in advertising laws etc. But they are IMO clearly diffrent than a preacher saying something in a church newsletter

[mondo joe]

83. Then they should avoid topics which are falsifiable and stick

to topics that are PURELY opinion.

I don't see any reason to hold a minister to a different standard than anyone else. Especially anyone else with a product to sell.

[Realityhack]

84. so...

if he had said... the church belives or I belive christ was the son of...

Then it would suddenly be ok? Seems a bit silly to me.

If someone wants to belive the world is flat, and they wan't to tell others they think that... IMO thats just fine.

In addition your statement about falsifiable does not address the main free speach issue of the state being able to severely limit speach based on what they belive to be 'true' or 'false' at any given time.

I think you are talking about going down an extreamly dangerous road. For instance... You say * lied... you can't PROVE he lied... only that the statemnt he made was not true... hello lawsuit.
You can think of hundereds of other examples. Republicans are liers, Gun control saves lives, etc, etc.
You wan't the ability to make these claims a matter for the courts to decide?

[mondo joe]

85. Of course. If you state something is a belief it's very different

from stating something as fact - especially if it is a matter that CAN be proved.

And free speech (not "speach") already covers this. You can legally say "I believe Bush did cocaine", but if you say "Bush used cocaine" you could be subject to a slander lawsuit. One is a belief, the other is stated as fact.

But the real matter here is this: there is no reason for religious speech to have a different set of standards.

[Realityhack]

87. so again if he had said...

'we belive' before what he said it would be fine but having it only implied (it was after all a church paper) makes it something that should be prosocuteable?

I am not saying hold religious speach to a diffrent standard. I am saying... if you want to go out and say the earth is flat go right ahead. Under a few cercumstances that must be limited, such as the case of a public school teacher, but in most cases I say let it go.

You still have failed to address the issue of that being a massively broad standard.

[mondo joe]

90. Of course you are saying hold religious speech to a different

standard - you've said precisely that!

And of course most things ARE let go. But what you're advocating is no legal accountability - and especially not for religious figures.

[Realityhack]

95. Perhapse I am just misunderstanding you.

Do you belive this particular case has merit? ie a religious person saying in a religious newsletter that Jeasus was the son of Josheph and Mary?

Where do you think the burdon of proof should lie for showing that something is false/true?


The thing about 'religious speach' is that speach in a religious context can be prity much asumed to be opinion. Not that there should be no accountability or any diffrent rules but speach should be examined in context. In context most religius speach is belifs and should be looked at as such.


I also think you have a fundemental mis-understanding about the current torts reguarding deflimation etc. in the US legal system. But as I said previously it appears to me that this case is not even about deflamation.

[mondo joe]

98. The facts of the case depend on the laws of the country -

there are cases that would have no merit under one system but would under another.

And assumption of opinion is a silly thing -- why shouldn't anyone say "well you should just assume it's my opinion" in any case of defamation or false advertising.

Once you make a public statement you open yourself to scrutiny - and at times legal repercussions. I don't see why a religious context should be any different than a sales context.

[Realityhack]

102. ok...

do you think the case SHOULD have standing under a legal system you imagine to be perfect?

I know it DOES under italian law and does NOT under US law.

People through common knowlege make a distinction between say a preacher on TV and a soda commercial on TV. It is reasonable to think they might be treated diffrently or that diffrent underlieng assumptions might exist based on that context.

Futhermore speach IS already regulated diffrently based on the type etc. in the US. For example you could look at the special laws reguarding political speach by various entities at particular times. Or false advertising laws.

I think one key question here is if I say:
"The earth is flat... and thats a fact"
Should that statement be something someone can sue me over?

[mondo joe]

106. I don't believe in perfect legal systems, but even if I did it would mean

hearing the merits of the case before deciding if it should have standing.

But I have little problem with people making falsifiable statements being held accountable for them -- it's the exact same principle as false advertising.

If you say the earth is flat should it be a potential lawsuit? Depends on the circumstance of who you are and when you say it. Just like anything else.

Do you believe a company should be able to say anything about their product as a factual statement regardless of how true it is?

[Realityhack]

110. Interestingly I think we agree on this.

"Depends on the circumstance of who you are and when you say it."
Thats what I was trying to say all along.

I have no problem with holding companies accountable. Just saying a blanket law which some people seemed to be in favor of was/is rather extreme and open to abuse. Which apears to be what you are saying as well.

Under the cercumstances of the lawsuit the thread is about IMO the case should not have standing given the cercumstances as I understand them, though I compltely agree that under the italian law currently it does have standing.

[radio4progressives]

44. Bingo!

personally, i find this story interesting. I'd like to know a little more about the law that this case is being pursued under.

Just think of it... if implemented in this country, lies and distortions could not be used in political campaigning - it would be illegal.

and creationist theory could not replace evolution theory in Science class rooms and history books cannot be revised and history redacted by modern day right propagandists.

and our commander in chief could never ever declare war against another country based on WMD's that do not exist, or because their democracy isn't the kind of democracy we want them to have, or because ... oops..


sorry for digressing...

[Realityhack]

73. And anything the state disagreed with...

could be made illigal to say.

[mondo joe]

86. Incorrect - it's not about what the state agrees with, but what can

be demonstrated to be factual. Just like many other cases -- slander, for example, or false advertising.

[Realityhack]

88. Not really true.

the court (state entity) is the one you have to prove its truth to. And they can set the rules on what evidence is and isn't alowed.

Realisticly that means that most things the state wishes to deny go away. If people want to belive in bizar shit and claim its factual I say let-em. The alternative means that you make it vertualy imposible to expose government coruption and have everyone tip-toing aroudn saying "I belive" before every statement (while prity much saying the same thing).

[Realityhack]

89. also remember...

in this case it appears the burden of proof is on the Defendant not the plaintif. IMO you have to be very careful about that kind of thing when dealing with free speach.

[mondo joe]

91. So you want no legal accountability because the court is a

state entity?

[Realityhack]

96. Not what I am saying.

I am saying you have to be very careful when making wide sweaping statments about limits on what can and can not be said.

Funny thing is a while back everyone on DU was going ape shit over the laws against denying the holocost... how can they do that... horible idea... blah blah.

I was actualy in the position of arguing that there is no evidence the law was abused (though I thought it was a stupid law... another conversation)

Anyway, my point is that I do not think you want to make a blanket asertation that people can not say something in a way that might represent it as a fact when in fact it is not true in all cercumstances the way some have suggested.

I like the idea of false advertising laws... but if some freeper posts that the world is flat and 10,000 years old and thats a Fact jack... I say that should not be illegal reguardless of it being much more demonstratably false than the existance of Jesus.

I am saying that the wide sweeping change in the way free speach rights work that some have advocated is a very dangerous idea. I think many people do not realize the unintended concequences such idialistic changes can bring. Is it a neat intelectual concept to ban people from saying anything that is demonstratably false in a way that makes it out as fact (or can be interpreted that way)... sure... a good idea... IMO NO not even close. Under some cercumstances or in some conditions sure. But in the case in question? I say no. Bad choice.

[mondo joe]

97. But no one has outlawed simply saying inaccurate things.

And this doesn't change the principle of freedom of speech.

[Realityhack]

101. It would outlaw for example

claiming the world was flat.
claiming there was a FSM.
claiming the moon landing was a hox.

Fact is it WOULD change freedom of speach significantly if I am understandign this correctly (which is always a risky assumption for me;-))

[mondo joe]

105. Incorrect.

"'abuse of popular credulity' and 'impersonation', both offences under the Italian penal code".

These are legal terms with particular definitions - no clear reason to believe that would apply to just anyone making the claims you suggest.

Besides, anyone could still claim they BELIEVE in the FSM, or they BELIEVE the world is flat.

[Realityhack]

103. um also

If you say the earth is 10,000 years old...
How exactly is that diffrent ('inacurate' instead of 'false') than saying Jesus was the son of X and Y?
seems to me there is a lot better evidence that the first one is false.

[Ian David]

19. I don't consider knocking on doors to covert people to be "doing good"

Granted, they weren't necessarily "doing bad," and they didn't deserve to get shot, but walking around the suburbs pushing your religion on people isn't "doing good."

Feeding the hungry and helping the homeless is "doing good."

Suburban evangelism is merely wasting one's time which could be better spent actually improving people's lives.

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. I thought you believed 'right and wrong' was an outmoded concept

in a religious sense? How come you're now worried that 'doing good' is unpopular?

Seriously, why do you say "doing good is very unpopular in this world"? It's true that a few right-wingers use "do-gooder" as an insult, but they're a small minority. What Cascioli objects to is exactly what the law is against - "abusing public credulity" - not "doing good".

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

7. Yeah, sure....

Hint: "The Da Vinci Code" is a novel.

[oregonindy]

4. I'll go with pope Leo X (1513-1521) on this one

Pope Leo X (1513-1521): He is quoted as saying


"It is well known to all the ages how profitable this fable of Christ has been to us"

[lateo]

36. Interesting discussion about that quote here...

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:JuHk7Y81rTYJ:godlikeproductions.com/bbs/aitem.php%3Fmessage%3D97728%26show%3D0405%26PHPSESSID%3D0b6427d9cc29760ecaac7f04117f9b8e+%22Pope+Leo+X%22+%2B+%22It+is+well+known+to+all%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en

[HuffleClaw]

5. i demand full dna testing

[Book Lover]

6. Signor Cascioli's website in English

http://www.luigicascioli.it/home_eng.php

[onager]

9. "Abusing popular credulity" is Job One for ANY religion

n/t

[Hyernel]

10. Christ exists in exactly the same way that Yoda, or Frodo, exists...

Except the followers of Yoda and Frodo aren't giddily expecting their imagined heros to come back and destroy the earth.

We should be careful as to which fictional characters we choose to believe as literally true.

:evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin:

[manic expression]

29. One thing

If someone wants to worship Yoda or Frodo, who am I to insult them? As long as they are genuine in their path, they will find truth as well as anyone else.

Just my opinion. Carry on.

[Hyernel]

41. OMF Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Why not teach Creationism or Flat Earthism in schools? As long as someone is genuine in whatever crap they want to concoct for themselves, we should respect that?

I won't beat around the bush. NO! That is fucking wrong!! The potential of the human race has already been held back for too long to continue to accept insane fantasies as being on equal par with reality.

Sure, if someone wants to worship Frodo, they can. Just don't let them run for public office. Don't let them start a cult and recruit the weak-minded to reject reality and instead embrace Frodoism.

[manic expression]

42. Why not teach it?

because that is a public school. If a private school wishes to offer a course, so be it, but there is a separation between church and state. Keep religion out of government, it is very simple.

Wait, so you want to restrict someone from holding office because of their beliefs? Are you even listening to yourself? THAT holds back the potential of the human race; THAT is rejecting reality. What happened to tolerance and respect?

Nothing has held back the potential of the human race but those exact ills: intolerance and ignorance. The restriction of someone from certain things because of what they believe in exhibits EXACTLY THAT.

Your inability to accept others is troubling, especially for someone who condemns the evils of intolerance.

If a Frodist wants to run for office, open a house of worship or do anything else, there is nothing wrong with that. If a Frodist is intolerant and pushes his/her views over other people's view, there is something wrong with that. Unfortunately, I see that you have argued for exactly that.

on edit: the same goes for FSM. Pastafarianism, if it be genuine, is every bit as valid as any other belief, and it will lead to the same truth.

[Hyernel]

57. I give up

[manic expression]

99. That was quick

why do you give up? Because someone disagrees with you? That is quite a pitiful excuse.

[Barrett808]

11. For scholarly analysis, see The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth

The Jesus Legend
by G. A. Wells, R. Joseph Hoffmann
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812693345/qid=1136322892/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl14/103-8986294-3212611?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

The Jesus Myth
by G. A. Wells
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812693922/qid=1136322980/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-8986294-3212611?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

From Publishers Weekly
Is the New Testament story of Jesus history or pure legend? Clearly seeking to provoke controversy, Wells (The Jesus Legend: What's in a Name?) contends that the accounts of Jesus in the canonical Gospels contradict not only one another but also the earliest Christian documents, which never present Jesus as an itinerant preacher, a miracle worker, born of a virgin or executed under Pilate. Combining literary criticism, textual criticism and historical criticism, Wells examines the evidence about Jesus by probing the Gospels and independent testimonies of Jesus's life from the first century A.D. such as the Gospel of Thomas and Q. The author also examines the letters of Paul and contends that Paul bases his portrait of Jesus on the Jewish figure of Wisdom, who sought acceptance on earth but was rejected and returned to heaven. In a detailed and convincing fashion, Wells argues that the Gospel stories of Jesus are myths composed to satisfy the religious longings of the Gospel writers' audiences.
Copyright 1998 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Independent Publisher, 4/15/99
This is a book for believers and unbelievers alike, in fact, for anyone who is a serious student of the bible or of the Christian faith. hope is that his readers will come to an informed opinion about the historical reliability of the New Testament, its writers and the life of its central character, Jesus.

[lateo]

37. Also check out "Misquoting Jesus"

[JohnyCanuck]

12. The greatest story ever sold?

The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold.

In this highly controversial and explosive book, archaeologist, historian, mythologist and linguist Acharya S marshals an enormous amount of startling evidence to demonstrate that Christianity and the story of Jesus Christ were created by members of various secret societies, mystery schools and religions in order to unify the Roman Empire under one state religion. In making such a fabrication, this multinational cabal drew upon a multitude of myths and rituals that already existed long before the Christian era, and reworked them for centuries into the story and religion passed down today.

While accessible to the reader, this book is scholarly, containing hundreds of quotes and 1200 footnotes in over 400 pages.

Excerpts from The Christ Conspiracy

From the very beginning of our quest to unravel the Christ conspiracy, we encounter suspicious territory, as we look back in time and discover that the real foundation of Christianity appears nothing like the image provided by the clergy and mainstream authorities. Indeed, far more rosy and cheerful than the reality is the picture painted by the vested interests as to the origins of the Christian religion: To wit, a miracle-making founder and pious, inspired apostles who faithfully and infallibly recorded his words and deeds shortly after his advent, and then went about promulgating the faith with great gusto and success in "saving souls." Contrary to this popular delusion, the reality is that, in addition to the enormous amount of bloodshed which accompanies its foundation, Christianity's history is rife with forgery and fraud. So rampant is this treachery and chicanery that any serious researcher must immediately begin to wonder about the story itself. In truth, the Christian tale has always been as difficult to swallow as the myths and fables of other cultures; yet countless people have been able to overlook the rational mind and to willingly believe it, even though they may equally as easily dismiss the nearly identical stories of these other cultures....

We have seen that there is no evidence for the historicity of the Christian founder, that the earliest Christian proponents were as a whole either utterly credulous or astoundingly deceitful, and that said "defenders of the faith" were compelled under incessant charges of fraud to admit that Christianity was a rehash of older religions. It has also been demonstrated that the world into which Christianity was born was filled with assorted gods and goddesses, as opposed to a monotheistic vacuum. In fact, in their fabulous exploits and wondrous powers many of these gods and goddesses are virtually the same as the Christ character, as attested to by the Christian apologists themselves. In further inspecting this issue we discover that "Jesus Christ" is in fact a compilation of these various gods, who were worshipped and whose dramas were regularly played out by ancient people long before the Christian era....

http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm

[Zhade]

13. Interesting.

If the case hinges on that, the priest's going to lose (and don't bother to bring up Josephus, biblical scholars have found 'his' references to Jesus to be later forgeries).

[shrike]

15. Some conflicting evidence there, actually

Read an article recently that says historians have gone back and forth on the issue of whether Josephus' Jesus entries were forgeries. Some (recent) say they were authentic, others (also recent) have said they are not. (author of the article was not a Christian) Wish I had a link for you.

[Zhade]

43. If so, not too surprising.

It was a long time ago, after all.

And even if Jesus existed (I remain unconvinced at present), that doesn't mean the nonsense about walking on water and whatnot actually happened.

So, meh. The biggest piece of evidence they could find, I think, would be Jesus' skeleton - but then, how would they know it was his, specifically?

Guess that's why I'm not an archeologist!

[shrike]

46. Then again

If he did indeed rose from the dead, would his skeleton be there?

But, that aside, how indeed WOULD they know?

Pharaohs lie at rest in pyramids, but how many ordinary Egyptians have been identified?

Jesus, at the time of his death, would have been just another crucified man.

[Ian David]

14. All this over a $15 parking ticket?

I'm kidding

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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”.

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

Basically, he's suing because the priest gave his book a bad review?

If only Galileo had thought of that.

[Henny Penny]

18. Oooh...

I can see the Mel Gibson movie (in Italian) as we speak....

Wonder how this'll turn out...? Will there be a last minute miracle to save the day...?
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[Thor_MN]

59. More like a remake of "Miracle on 34th Street"

And your honor, millions of people, including official reperesentatives of many governments, go to Jerusalem to seek... yadah, yadah, yadah.

Most of the "proof" of the Bible exists in the same form by which I can prove that a Captain Ahab chased a white whale - I have found proof of the ancient port of Nantucket.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=41.282709,-70.094104&spn=0.016329,0.027153&t=h&hl=en

See? It's in the book and it really existed, therefore the book must be true...

[shrike]

16. I'd bet money there's more to this

Like REALLY bad blood between these two guys, for some reason.

Any number of books "debunking the Christ myth" have been published in this world, and the literature actually goes back quite a few years. I'm sure Fr. Righi is not the first to denounce Cascioli's book from the pulpit and will not been the last. So why is Cascioli chasing this particular priest? And why is Righi so worried about this guy in the first place? Plenty of other Christ myth authors out there to excoriate publicly.

Sounds like a job for Judge Judy to me.

[grumpy old fart]

20. Interesting law to have on the books, no?

“Abusing popular credulity”. It's apparently been used in other cases to debunk claimed miracles.

http://www.cicap.org/en_artic/at101017.htm (regarding a "weeping" Madonna)

[shrike]

40. Interesting

The church has a rather interesting viewpoint regarding miracles. Read Bernadette of Lourdes' biography: it's not what you think. The Church and the French government made her life miserable. I don't know what she saw or thought she saw down there, but it was the worst thing that ever happened to her.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. No, they interviewed Cascioli on BBC radio

and he said it wasn't anything against Righi - it was just that when Righi put in writing the claim that Jesus was a historical fact, Cascioli decided he could hang a legal case on that. He said he was after the whole Catholic church.

[hogwyld]

35. Hope he doesn't stop there

After he humiliates and debunks the Catholic church, and christianity in general, hopefully he'll go after the rest of the world's religions. There is no Santa, easter bunny, or flying spaghetti monster.

[shrike]

39. 'Fraid a judgement in an Italian court isn't going to mean much

And as I said in the other post, one priest is not the whole Catholic church. He might want to aim a little higher.

There are an awful lot of religions in the world. A few of them play much rougher than the Catholic Church. And I'm not talking about Islam. I'd pay money to see him go into New Guinea.

[shrike]

38. One priest isn't the whole Catholic church

If I were him I'd aim a little higher.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. Not that I expect him to win the court case

but the point is the particular Italian law about "abusing public credulity". If he were, by some miracle, so to speak, win the case, it would affect all Christian churches in Italy in a huge way - it would set a precedent affecting all that they say about Jesus.

[shrike]

70. How would you enforce such a thing?

Would that also cover what the laity says in private -- or at a public gathering? Or among friends? What if the individual is not a priest, but a respected member of the community?

No offense meant, Muriel, but I find the idea impractical.

Besides, Italy is a rather small place and the Catholic Church is a rather large organization.

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. It would cover all public claims of a historical Jesus, I'd think

since it's "public" credulity. It would cover anyone in Italy - priests, respected and non-respected members of the community (including non-Catholics). It would be enforced by anyone who feels like it reporting the offender to the courts - just like libel is enforced. It could have a significant effect on the Catholics - in one of their major areas, a ban on some of their main claims being repeated would be a pain for them.

[Realityhack]

78. For public credulity...

is it required to be for monitary gain? Also is it required to be from a position of athority?

The complaint made refrence to both but I am not entirely clear on the specifics of wither that was part of the public credulity or part of some aditional thing (ie credulity with x intent or something)

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. I don't know, but the case in post #20 would appear to say not

(though it doesn't say that actually got to court), since that was against 'unknown persons'.

[shrike]

79. Oh boy

Get ticked off at your neighbor and report him for public credulity. I can see it now. How would you provide evidence? Tape recordings (that should be fun.) Witnesses? (Even more fun.) And which claims would be banned, I wonder? How many?

Good luck to them with that. Now I'm GLAD I'm not Italian.

[radio4progressives]

48. Cool!! It's about Goddess Time that happened! Taking on the CORRUPT

VATICAN .... :applause: :woohoo: :applause:

[Realityhack]

66. I do not think...

that telling people they are not alowed to belive in (or at least preach from a pulpit) falsehoods is a very safe idea for any society. I think you beter read the brif they filed before you see it as a good thing. Case does not apear to be about slander at all.

[mondo joe]

92. Who is saying what people can believe? How do you feel about

laws against slander or false advertising?

[Realityhack]

104. I am not saying either is inherently bad...

more trying to make a point that its easy to go too far on something like a slander law.

Its one thing to single someone out and say Bob raped his daugher. Its quite another to say Bob is a bad person because he is gay (assuming he is admitedly gay), and quite another still to say 'jesus existed' or 'the earth is flat' IMO.

Same goes for false advertising. Its one thing to say '10% off' when its not, or kills germs when it doesn't, and another to say in a church newsletter 'jesus existed', 'x type of people are bad', or 'the world is flat'. Yes the church wants your money... but I think a reasonable person can see a distinction between these.

I also think that a law saying "you can not say anything untrue as if it is true" or some such (which apears to be close to but a little beyond what we are talking about here) is open to rampant abuse and not necisarily a good idea.

[Peace Patriot]

21. Well, my belief in the First Amendment (as near to fanatical as my beliefs

become) causes me to look very unfavorably on this lawsuit, dragging somebody into court for his religious beliefs. So what if he and all his followers are deluded? I'd give very wide latitude to "abusing popular credulity." (I think I might start drawing the line, though, at Bush's and Cheney's whoppers--but they are under a legal obligation to tell the truth at least to Congress; carefully avoided being put under oath on 9/11; and have at least an ethical obligation to tell the truth to the American people.)

I would curtail or regulate "corporate speech"--for instance, PR lies told by big corporations about their products, and their political campaign contributions, of course--because they are not persons, in my opinion, and should never have been given rights as persons. They are supposedly business groups who are chartered to perform actions that are in the public interest.

But a priest is not a corporation. He's just a man. He should be free to say what he wants. The Church itself operates as a supposed non-profit corporation, which, in our country anyway, is permitted to take in tax free money, invest the money, purchase and own property, and conduct all sorts of activities, provided that no one personally profits and that it does NOT engage in political activity. What it preaches, and what its members believe, is no one's business but their own (provided it doesn't break any laws). The moment they cross that line into political activity, however, I would yank their non-profit status immediately. The Catholic Church's history of political meddling and siding with fascist causes is just too plain to allow them any leeway. (I don't know what their legal status is in Italy.)

As to Jesus being real, I haven't read the referenced books, but I have done some study of both authorized and unauthorized gospels, and other early writings (in English translations). I most certainly think that there was a cabal of patriarchal powermongers that coalesced in the mid-5th century A.D. to rewrite the history of the earliest Christians, to create a rigid, narrow dogma that was enforced upon all Christians and used as a tool to prop up the Christian emperors in Rome, to "edit" the gospels accordingly and burn and suppress any early gospels that contradicted the new dogma, and to persecute any who strayed from the line that was dictated from Rome. This is why the group of religious writings and gospels known as "the Gnostic Gospels" was sealed into jars and buried in a cave in the Nag Hammadi desert near Alexandria, during that very period--where they remained for 1,500 years.

The Gnostic Gospels are fragments of that which was being suppressed. The earliest dated gospel, called the Gospel of Mary (of which only a few pages survive), reveals a very different picture of the Apostles than the Church would have us believe. In it, Mary Magdalen is the leader of the Apostles and is described as the only one among them who understood Jesus' esoteric teachings. This gospel was written down only about 50 years after Jesus died.

I can't prove it, but I strongly suspect that the words, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" were an interpolation by the 5th century "Fathers," to bolster male authority and justify the creation of a Christian state in which their cabal could acquire and own property and enrich themselves by association with an earthly emperor. The words are out of sync with everything else that Jesus says, even in the sanitized, authorized versions of his teachings. If ever there was a man who detested institutionalized religion, with it all its hypocrisy and greed, it was Jesus, whose every other utterance urged detachment from material possessions and earthly power, and association with the POOR. The church that these later "Fathers" created could not have been more un-Christian.

"Love thy neighbor." That's about it. An inspired and luminous insight into true happiness. The evidence is that the earliest Christians, starting with Jesus, lived communally, owned nothing, were completely inclusive and democratic, and had no dogma other than this simple message. The Gnostic Christians that St. Iraneus and others of the "Early Fathers" ilk railed against held "Mass" (their remembrance of Jesus in the breaking of bread) in the round and drew lots for who would preside. Anyone--a woman, a child--could be the "priest."

This was anathema to "the Fathers" though it was clearly how Jesus himself lived. Put it this way: the earliest Christians were leftists and communists. The 5th century "Fathers" were property rights' advocates, and founders of the first global corporation.

All in all, it's my strong impression that Jesus was a real person. I think he greatly inspired those around him, to such a degree that his impact lasted long after his death, and that it is BECAUSE of this impact--the impact of a real human being--that belief in him and his teaching was then co-opted by the power players of the 3rd to 5th centuries, who turned it into a money machine--kind of like the way corporations today have turned the raw inspiration and beauty and fun of early rock 'n' roll music into an empty-hearted cash cow.

It is the irony of ironies that the men who co-opted this simple, elegant teaching--"love thy neighbor"--and who began creating a church supposedly based on the message of gentle Jesus--were led by one of the worst villains in history, who committed one of history's greatest crimes. Saint Cyril, "Patriarch" of Alexandria. This is the man who ordered the murder of Hypatia, a beloved 5th century teacher, philosopher and mathematician, who counted Christian bishops among her pupils and devoted friends, and who inspired those around her much the way Jesus inspired people. She was a neo-platonist (whom Cyril would have called a Pagan), but she clearly represented a bridge between the old world of Greek philosophy and Roman culture, and the new Christian religion of love. Cyril directed a mob of Christian monks to drag her through the streets of Alexandria and skin her alive.

Her death marks the end of the rule of law in the Roman Empire--and the beginning of the "Dark Ages" in which most of the learning--the accumulation of a thousand years of Greek and Roman culture--that was assembled in the Alexandria Library was lost. I also tend to think that the institution that we know today as the Catholic Church was built, not on the blood of Jesus, as it claims, but on the blood of Hypatia, and that its lineage does not go back to St Peter, as it claims, but rather to St. Cyril, murderer. Ever wonder why the Mass is such a fetishistic affair? I think this is why. Guilt. Lies. Cover-ups. Wrongness. A great and very old sin, the taint of which has passed down to every priest who ever stood on an altar and claimed to be the representative of Jesus.

[TroglodyteScholar]

27. Does Italy have a First Amendment? n/t

[Realityhack]

31. Not in the same way the US does.

As I understand it there are some fundemental diffrences in their legal system having to do with what legal system it was derived from. There are much tighter controls on making false statements/slander/etc.

[NuttyFluffers]

62. but even the 1st amendment doesn't defend slander, libel, or defamation

considering that this case is being taken up on an act of, essentially, defamation of character (possibly libel, the guy is a professional and his expertise is being questioned) with an argument hinged around historical/archaeological basis, thus one that can provide empirical evidence, and thus valid evidence for a court.

the first amendment would be all over this case in support of letting it go through. the religion clause has no validity because this is a scholastic exercise and potentially a crime has been committed in terms of unprotected speech. and that's just if this incident occured in america, let alone italy.

[Realityhack]

65. Not at all correct

In the US this case would have no grounds if you actualy read what was said etc.

The torts on libel etc are quite limited. It is perfectly ok to say someone is a 'bad person' because they belive X (given they actualy do) but that isn't what the case was about anyway. We have no similar law in the US. You can do quite a bit of 'deciving people' about the 'facts' when it comes to religion. Claiming theire was a FSM who was born in 1280 to Bob and Frank is perfectly legal here even if you are a powerful group.

Furthermore you can question anyones historical arguement. Just because a religion in the US says science is bunk even a specific persons for no good reason does not make them liable for anything.

[NuttyFluffers]

68. you cannot call a professional a quack w/o proof, nor defame w/o proof

i read the article, several times. do you know he wasn't defamed? how? what exactly was said in that newsletter (i don't have access to the newsletter, if you do, share it online. libraries often have scanners)? i don't know what was said, do you? post it. how do you know that this is not a case that can be taken to court in america?

if his credibility is at stake as a well-researched writer, and the research was questioned and dismissed as foolishness in the newsletter, then there'd have to be evidence to back up the priest's claim, otherwise a violation of unprotected speech was committed. from what little we know of the facts in this case it could be anything, even enough to fit the criteria of torts in this country for defamation (or libel. unlikely, he's a professional agronomist, no relation to history prof or archaeologist, which would be relevant professions. and yet, he could if he is considered a valid professional researcher, so i honestly don't know). you cannot destroy people's good name without evidence without the prospect of facing repurcussions. free speech goes far, but nowhere near as far as people think.

now if you have definitive proof that this case cannot be taken up here, (a copy of the newsletter would be nice), i'll gladly agree with you. until then, this could be anything, and very much within the realm of unprotected speech in america.

[Realityhack]

69. In response to that.

From The complaint

This complaint does not wish to contest the freedom of Christians to profess their faith, sanctioned by art. 19 of the Italian Constitution, but wishes to denounce the abuse that the Catholic Church commits by availing itself of its prestige in order to inculcate – as if being real and historical – facts that are really just inventions.

A plain example of such abuse, has been perpetrated by don Enrico Righi (parish priest of Borgoregio) when he had falsely sustained, in the parish gazette of St. Bonaventura in Borgoregio, ? 245 of March-April 2002, that the historic figure of Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary (two totally imaginary characters and therefore historically non existing); of having the same Jesus been born in the village of Bethlehm and of having grown up in Nazareth.


In the US belif in sillyness is well protected. This particular case would have no grounds.

Furthermore there IS enormous freedom to question someones research. Certainly there is plenty of valid academic debate in reguards to the existance of 'Jeasus'. Futhermore I CAN say you are a bad person for whatever grounds I darn well pelease.

Futhermore the torts on defilimaton in the US as I understand it require monitary damages be suffered or the offense to be extreamly agregious. They are fairly complicated but the prist COULD
1. Say you were evil
2. Say you were doing evil work
3. Question your research on even flimzy or silly accidemic grounds
4. Say your research is wrong because god told you so

But it sure appears that this case is not about deflimation of charicter anyway. I could be reading it wrong but it looks like it is over a 'lie' about historical 'facts'.

[NuttyFluffers]

108. ooh, where'd you get that quote? is that in the docket?

i'd actually like to see that.

if it is something as silly as simple castigation and criticism, then yes, one would be fully able to express that here. from the article (and not being able to find any real links on the article to the docket or formal complaint) it really could have been anything. one can challenge scholastic research in peer review, or make unsubstantiated claims of nonsense to the contrary as a layman, but there is distinct potential to cross the line and that's why there's these rules for unprotected speech in america.

if it as cut and dry as what additional resource you've found then, yes, you are right, i wouldn't find this as grounds for defamation as ruled in america. but i'd still like to see where you found that new info, looks amusing.

[VegasWolf]

22. I've got a thousand dollars that says Jesus doesn't show for the trial!

:bounce:

[ismnotwasm]

32. Man, I got lost on this one

I thought the actually existence of Jesus was no longer contested (Wrong again I see)
Who and what he actually was, is what remained open to debate.
Those with faith in Jesus (they don't call it "faith" for nothing) believe he was the actual child of a Creator God, brought to earth to guide people through their time on earth, to (as I see it) cause as little damage as possible to the earth and each other as possible, as well as grow in grace and spirituality--to be "saved" from the human condition. (I know some Christians who don't take quite it literally as even that, as well as those who believe in the absolute inerrantcy of the bible.)

Those without that faith, (like myself) Find Jesus to be a fascinating historical character shrouded in myths, facts, and lies. The myths are nearly archetypes, with those same myths (or facts for a believer) found in early evidence of earlier beliefs, with some repeated over and over in different cultures. (Virgin birth, for example)

I dunno. Is it that hard to prove he existed? I mean any harder that any other ancient character referred to mostly in others' writings?

Personally, I wouldn't pick this bone again. Seems to me I used to read about this in the seventies.
Just keep church and state far, far, apart, and believe in what you want.

[Nikki Stone 1]

34. The evidence is pretty weak, and the Church tampered with much of it

THE EVIDENCE

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


# 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

*******19th century German scholarship tore hole after hole into the Gospel accounts. The Gospels are not consistent with each other, no less with other sources.


# 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”

*********This description is widely known to be an "interpolation" by later Christian translators of the work. A more recent discovery of a "Slavonic" Josephus described Jesus as a "king who never reigned."

(See Eisenman, Robert. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians. Eisenman is a professor at California State University Long Beach.)

# 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

*********Belief, not historical evidence


# 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.”

********A piece of solid evidence about a Chrestus (a Latinization of the Greek word for Messiah, perhaps our Jesus, perhaps not. 1st century Palestine was "Messiah of the Month Club", with many different men claiming the title. The most important to do so from a strictly political perspective was Menachem, son of Judas of Galilee (or Gamala, who led a revolt against Rome in 4 BC). Menachem walked into the Jerusalem temple in AD 66, declared himself Messiah, and inaugurated the 4-year Jewish war against the Roman Empire. Rome won, burned the temple and expelled the Jews from Jerusalem. about 60 years later, another "Messiah" (Simon bar Kochba) tried the same kind of revolt against Rome: Rome won and expelled the Jews from Palestine, renaming the area Caesaria.

So, Chrestus could be any of the political Messiahs who came after Jesus. Tacitus's life span suggests this.

[wildcat78]

45. Roman Legal Documents

Both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of Apostles are considered Roman Legal documents. The existence of Jesus and all that occurred has been proven in a Roman court of Inquiry. To prove something in a Roman court was tougher than today's court system.

Jesus existed and His resurrection happened: it's all legal!

[phrenzy]

47. No, It did not.

[wildcat78]

51. It's all legal!

I'd suggest you read the first chapter of Acts. In verse 3, Luke uses the Latin term, in multis argumentis which was used in the Roman Court of Inquiry to say that this evidence is irrefutable. The key word is suam, which can be translated as itself, it’s (own). Now, another translation can be sewn together or stitched. So, this phrase can be interpreted as these proofs are stitched together. Like a quilt, where the various patches are sewn together, they cannot be separated from each other.

So, what are the many proofs? Well, they are the eyewitnesses who saw Jesus alive for the forty days between the resurrection and the ascension. Paul writes about Jesus appearing to 500 eyewitnesses (1 Cor 15:3-8). Back then, as today, it takes only two or three eyewitnesses of an event for it to be accepted as fact in a court of law (Matt 18:16).

Why so many eyewitnesses? For those who killed Jesus attempted to cover up the resurrection.

Lastly, Luke stated in Lk 1:3,4, “he carefully investigated all of the accounts from the beginning”.

We can rest assured that what we read here in the Gospel of Luke and Acts is legal.

[grumpy old fart]

55. lol...Gotta luv a fundie. Prove the Bible by using the Bible.....

Dude, ya gotta do better than that!

[VegasWolf]

58. LOL! That's how they reinforce their hallucinations. Circular logic. nt

:toast:

[onager]

81. Would you like to buy some real estate?

Lovely property. Connects San Francisco with Marin County. I have the deed. Really! And it's all legal!

[radio4progressives]

50. Proven in the Roman Court of Inquiry ?

that proves it then, it must be the gospel truth... so saeth Michael C. ;)

[Left Below]

49. Paul (also Pol, Apollo, Saul, or Apollonius of Tyana)

author of much of the New Testament, knew nothing of Jesus other than of his reputed death.

In all his writings, he never mentions anything of the life of Jesus despite his famous conversion on the road to Damascus. Paul/Apollo died @ 65 AD.

[wildcat78]

52. Luke did the reporting

Luke traveled with Paul. This is documented in the second half of the Book of Acts. We know this in Acts 16:10. We know that Paul was blinded on the way to Damascus. Now, if this blindness was caused by a fall from the horse or some kind of mental condition, then Anaias would not have been able to remove Paul's blindness as directed by Christ. (Acts 9:10-19).

So, Christ not only appeared to Paul but he also appeared to Annias in relation to the event that Paul experienced. Jesus appeared to two different people, not known to each other and physically separated from each other at the time of their personal visitations, so that we may believe that what happened to Paul was real and, in turn, Jesus is real.

[phrenzy]

54. So is King Arthur

And Robin Hood. There's books about them, so they must be real!

[shrike]

71. Actually, they probably did

Or characters like them.

[Realityhack]

74. IIRC

The original robbin hood was very diffrent from the current ledgend so I would say no nobody like them likely existed.

[shrike]

75. Well, if there IS an original Robin Hood

He DID exist, no?

Nobody's saying THEY are anything like their literary counterparts. But humans are rarely imaginative enough to come up with something out of whole cloth.

I watched a fascinating documentary on the man they suspect was the "real" Arthur. A rather bloodthirsty king who morphed into a noble legend.

[TankLV]

56. Oh brother. You create a book to preclaim a belief as fact.

When told to offer proof of youir claim, you offer your self-created book as proof!

"Might as well said "because I said so!" as proof.

Same bullshit.

[Ben Ceremos]

82. All that you are claiming

is hear-say and inadmissible as evidence in most courts. Furthermore, sufficient scholarship exists to trace the story of the Christ back easily as far as ancient Egypt, consequently calling into doubt any modern literary proofs such as the bible. Faith is not proof and I request that you argue from facts and not from belief, as the "argument from belief" is not a logical argument at all.

[JVS]

60. Can you prove that Paul existed? You'd better prove he existed...

before you talk about what the extent of his knowledge was.

[NYC Liberal]

76. "The Bible is true because...it's in the Bible!"

:rofl: Some people are just too gullible. Or intentionally deceitful.

[pro_blue_guy]

53. Oh my!

What a crazy world we live in!

[Gin]

63. Jesus existed...the Christ is an aspect in each and every one of us...

in various stages of development......yes...even the shrub has it....but it's buried under brush!

[NobleCynic]

64. wow

Amusing but stupid. No one can really prove or disprove something that happened that long ago. There will always be enough reasonable doubt to allow both sides to claim they are correct.

[superconnected]

100. Exactly.

And the ignorance on this thread claiming they "know" one way or another, is sad.

[Generator]

93. I think he probably did exist but

he's not the Jesus of the Catholic church. Or any church we have. It's all a bunch of dogma which has little to do with the real Jesus and his teachings. Check out the Gnostics. And check out why they are considered heresy. The nag hammadi scrolls. I do believe almost everything everyone is lead to believe is a lie. It's very analagous to what's happening in this country right now. A smattering of truth and a whole lotta faith in "believe me" "trust me" and would your president, bishop, priest lie to you? Oh heavens.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tedzbear]

109. The New Testament is nothing more than folklore.

NONE of it can be verified as historical fact using university level criteria.

Read "Holy Writ as Oral Lit, the Bible as Folklore" by Alan Dundes.

Or if you have the patience of a historian who is ready to wade through pages and pages of data, read "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition?" by Robert M. Price.

OR BEST OF ALL, watch the fascinating documentary, "The God Who Wasn't There."
It's available on DVD at:

http://www.thegodmovie.com/

[Gregorian]

111. That is so untrue.

In the old testament, it is stated exactly which lineage Jesus would be born into. And it became true. Unless you think they lied about it.

There are numerous eyewitness accounts of Jesus healing sick, dead, injured. Unless they're all lies.

That and literally hundreds of other things that were either predicted, or based on historical fact, were true.

What about the ten commandments. Did Moses just carve those up in his garage?


The bible is a history book. Deny that, and you might as well deny the holocaust ever happened.

The bible is not written by ONE AUTHOR. It's written over thousands of years by a multitude of people. It's not like some guy made this up. It's history, documented.

[wildcat78]

113. What about the community of saints?

If Christ did not exist, was based on existing pagan myths and just folklore, then explain the community of saints. There are numerous, documented miracles performed by ordinary people by being a follower of Christ. Take for example, St. Francis of Assisi, who was able to literally wash away leprosy sores.

Another example of Ploycarp, the bishop of the church at Smyrna. For years, he led a quiet life being the bishop, then the Romans arrested him for not declaring Caesar as God. So, the Romans tied him to a stake and tried to burn him. As the fire was about to be lit, a voice was heard by all the believers: "Polycarp, play the man!". The fire was lit. But, it never touched him for the fire , "like the sail of a vessel filled by the wind, made a wall round the body", leaving him unscathed. The executioner was ordered to stab him, thereupon, "there came forth a quantity of blood so that it extinguished the fire".

What about the saints who were martyed at the Roman Coliseum? If they didn't believe in Jesus as the Christ, why would they be subjected to such horror?

All these stories are documented, thus making them historical fact.

If Jesus was a myth and did not exist, then Francis could not have performed the miracles He did, the fire would have reached Polycarp and all those who died in the Roman Coliseum were just fools.

But, the lives and events of the saints show that Jesus existed, was God and is alive today.

[Berserkr]

115. Better video (stuffed with stuff)

"The God Who Wasn't There" has little educational value, it mostly shows us that most Christians know nothing about christianity. People should rather check out a video called "The Pharmacratic Inquisition" for information about the origins of Christ. This video really opened my eyes about all religions. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

The video also teaches you the basics in religious symbolism. All those who read the DaVinci code should be interested in this.

[NashVegas]

112. Mainstream Media Reporting Now - and Getting It Ass Backwards

I just heard CNN talking about this, but didn't hear any mention that the suit was being brought because the priest was using his "credulity" to denounce the author.

[muriel_volestrangler]

114. It's not the priest's credulity, it's the public's credulity

'Credulity' means "readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence". The accusation that Cascioli is making is that the priest is abusing this readiness - that is, conning them.

[mmonk]

116. I personally believe

Jesus of Nazareth existed. But that's a far cry from believing he was born in Bethlehem, was actually God, born of a virgin, etc. For that, I suggest people study the type of writing of the time. Figures of the period had their greatness exaggerated as a way of establishing them as legitimate leaders whether that be faith or politics. There was also midrash which was a way of looking back into the bible to understand a person's greatness in their present time. That's why to me, taking the bible as literate fact, history, or science is somewhat ridiculous.

[PATRICK]

117. Goes back to the "Napoleon didn't exist" debate

which was an attempt to ridicule rigid historical analysis and other things. In historical evidence terms Jesus of Nazareth is barely acknowledged outside of Christian sources and those after decades. the expulsion of Christians didn't help. Only Josephus the Jewish historian mentions him briefly and that appears to be an addition characteristic of a Christian emendation. So that leaves a lot of accuracy to be desired and many details pegged together with inferences and theories.

Also the faking of the moon landings, the non-existence of the Holocaust are similar examples of counter history. It is amazing how one proposes to understand the life of another human being, down to character and personality on really the barest thumbnail remnant of evidence and memory. The role of scientific history itself not sufficient to account for belief in what we think we know of the past. We have a lot of faith that do not examine and presume to have a lot more concrete, untampered evidence than in fact is available. Now, in the information age where faking is a lot more difficult than spin, we are much more unsure of the character, actions and intentions of the most public figures.

If the disciples of Christ had not nailed down the oral tradition by the second generation there would have have been much more legend and disagreeing editing than is admitted to exist by Church scholars. Namely what happened to Buddha and Moses as to their words, life, etc. has really vanished into myth.
Mainly humanity has faith in general in its majority oral tradition. Faith communities are stuck with a core that the rest of mankind does not share. If there is a fraud, such as Julian the Apostate attempted to prove with planted ME evidence then it can be delved into. Arguments from logic alone have to be cautious since things like the magical tales of Ulysses' voyage and others have been found to have some tangible basis in fact.