| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/07/2006 11:45:51 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator, reason:
Duplicate: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551891/posts |
Posted on 01/07/2006 7:51:09 AM PST by Joy in the Journey
By Phil Stewart Wed Jan 4, 10:28 PM ET
ROME (Reuters) - Forget the U.S. debate over intelligent design versus evolution.
An Italian court is tackling Jesus -- and whether the Roman Catholic Church may be breaking the law by teaching that he existed 2,000 years ago.
The case pits against each other two men in their 70s, who are from the same central Italian town and even went to the same seminary school in their teenage years.
The defendant, Enrico Righi, went on to become a priest writing for the parish newspaper. The plaintiff, Luigi Cascioli, became a vocal atheist who, after years of legal wrangling, is set to get his day in court later this month.
"I started this lawsuit because I wanted to deal the final blow against the Church, the bearer of obscurantism and regression," Cascioli told Reuters.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Proof?
The court is above its head on this one. The Concordat between Italy and the Vatican pretty well excludes the state from getting into such matters.
This case really appears to be a rant from an athiest crying for attention. My dealings with athiests has taught me that they are immature in their clinging essentially to a faith that is twisted.
I wonder if folks like Dominic Crossan and the other members of the Jesus Seminar will file petitions in support of the guy who is suing the church.
I wonder what Pat Robertson will say about this...and put his foot in his mouth yet again.
Shouldnt be too hard to prove a man named Jesus Christ existed. Now proving he was the Messiah? Thats something else.
Luigi Cascioli
I think that must be the Italian translation of Michael Newdow.
Sharon has his enemies and Pat is stepping in to speak for them.
Of course Jesus existed..The Romans should know better than anyone since they murdered him..And a judge won't change my mind about jesus..
what a shame ... just down the street from The Vatican too ....
They all will find out soon enough. Hate to be in the atheist shoes, though.
Should read....
"Does Italian court exists? Jesus to decide"
"All this granted, much remains. The contradictions [in the synopotc gospel accounts] are of minutae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies - e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates - would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed - the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty of his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain remarkably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man.
Jesus did live, he was the Son of God, He did die for our sins.
Imagine his surprise when he discovers Jesus Christ still is alive and is preparing for a Millenial Rule. They didn't call it a Ressurrection for nothing.
There are plenty of other references to Jesus' existence other than Josephus. I have read many different takes on the references by Josephus, and there has seemed to be a consensus that Josephus did indeed mention him, but that the parenthetical remark "if indeed we can call him a man" may have been inserted since it does no seem consistent with Josephus' other writings.
Ever hear the old Bill Cosby stuff, when he was Noah and God called him?
I can't believe a court / judge / anyone thinks they can decide this.
LVM
If any of you have doubts and are seriously interested in knowing the truth, read Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" or Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.