Posted on 01/02/2006 4:30:26 PM PST by InvisibleChurch
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.”
What is your date for the authorship of Matthew? I read mine from the front matter of the "New American Bible" the one with the Catholic imprimature.
The older texts of Mark don't have the doubting Thomas narrative.
"I doubt, therefore I think. I think, therefore I am." Descartes.
What about the Toledot Jeshu
Since Matthew never makes mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, although he gives the prediction of Jesus that it will be destroyed, that pretty much narrows it in before 70 AD. Most scholars put it between 55 and 70 AD. No serious scholars I have ever heard of put it after 100 AD.
The easiest way to get a prediction to be accurate, is to make the prediction after the event, but predate your prediction.
That is what happened to the prediction in Daniel. The one about Tyre being picked up and thrown into the sea.
The prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, to my mind, conclusively dates Matthew after AD 70.
That is simply because you approach the text with an anti-supernatural presupposition, which is neither historically justified, nor demanded by "science" but is pure prejudice. Your comments on Daniel are similiar There is no "reason" to approach a book that openly presents a supernatural view of the universe with anti-supernatural rubrics already in place. That is, unless your object is to avoid at all costs any compelling universal truths which may have a claim on your commitment to your own cosmic independence.
I just think that it is a lot more likely to have someone pretend to have predicted something, than it is to have a supernatural being hand unknowable information down.
Other people have analyzed the book of Daniel, and the language appears to match the Maccabees timeframe better than the reign of Belshazzar ect. Now if you care for the supernatural explanation, the supernatural being could have emulated the language of 172BC in addition to providing 325BC data.
That is the problem with supernatural based religions. Jam yesterday, Jam tomorrow, but never Jam today.
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.