Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest
Times Online UK ^ | January 3, 2006 | Richard Owen

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.”


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: antichristianity; jesushaters; priest
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-174 next last
To: AnAmericanMother

The gospels were only written long after, from 70AD for Mark to 200AD or so for Matthew.

Matthew contains Mark. That implies that it was a pious expansion on Mark.

Luke messed up Christ's birth, confusing a census that occured 6AD.

John doesn't have Jesus H. Christ even being born. A much more transendental figure.

So why is the middle initial H?


101 posted on 01/02/2006 6:52:57 PM PST by Donald Meaker (You don't drive a car looking through the rear view mirror, but you do practice politics that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

Italy must have some interesting rules about what can and cannot be published in a parish newsletter.


102 posted on 01/02/2006 6:54:07 PM PST by skr ("That book [Bible], sir, is the rock on which our republic rests."--Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

Thanx


103 posted on 01/02/2006 6:55:11 PM PST by bigsigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

[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.]

Hee, hee. No one in history was written of before the authors that wrote of them existed because they were not alive to to written of(except the prophets who wrote of the Messiah God would send)! All authors lived during or after the time of the people of whom they wrote existed.
Ignorant judge.


104 posted on 01/02/2006 6:57:46 PM PST by kindred (Lord,thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kenavi
It would indeed be a GREAT AUTHOR to have created the Gospel life of Jesus as a fiction, and a MIRACLE that it would turn into such a "best-seller".

He would have had to have worked in cross-references throughout the entire Old Testament and make them fit without any slip-ups, as well.

105 posted on 01/02/2006 6:59:27 PM PST by InvisibleChurch (The search for someone to blame is always successful. - Robert Half)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney
The name is so controversial. There seems to be a tendency to not speak his name. Only in church.

Or, when cussing.

106 posted on 01/02/2006 7:02:02 PM PST by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Donald Meaker
So why is the middle initial H?

Three theories are extant: (1) it stands for "Hebrew", but that is redundant; (2) it stands for "haploid", but that's an anachronism; (3) it stands for "holy". That's Mark Twain's theory (in Roughing It) and he has hands down the best discourse on the middle initial. So I think I'll go with Mr. Clemens, near-infidel though he be. < g >

107 posted on 01/02/2006 7:05:19 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: xmission

So strange this "anti-religion" mouthpiece states no beef with, say, Buddhism, Islam, modern Judaism, or the Hindus. They thus bear testimony even in their opposition that Christianity is the only religion that really matters.


108 posted on 01/02/2006 7:05:31 PM PST by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch
How is this not hate speech? This man is motivated not by any fundamental set of morals or ideals. He is motivated by his hatred of Christianity. There is absolutely no point in this priest trying to prove the historical existence of Jesus. Christ himself could appear in the courtroom amidst the Heavenly Hosts and this jerk would still not accept it as proof.

He, like many atheists, is in love with the sound of his own voice, is greatly impressed with his own "intellect" and delights in the discomfort of others, specifically Christians. He lives to anger others so he will not be alone in his misery. The priest should ignore the court order.

109 posted on 01/02/2006 7:10:17 PM PST by Reaganesque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsigh
"Do you have a source for the four Gosples being eyewitness accounts?"

Statements of the writers, or the apostles is a start. See Luke 1:1-3, 1 John 1:1-3, Acts 1:1-3. II Peter 1:16. The New Testament claims to be either be eyewitness, or compilations of eyewitness accounts. Eusibius' "Ecclesiastical history" contains information on their writing but I do not recall the specifics.

It is hard to do justice to this subject and condense it to a few comments on a thread. F.F. Bruce was the Rylands professor of biblical criticism at the University of Manchester in England. He wrote 2 very good books on the subject which would be much better to refer to than this thread. The first is:

"The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable?"

It has a good discussion on the date of the writings, eyewitness source of the documents, comparison of content to history of the time and to the known archeology. There is a chapter on early references to Christ in the Mishna, or Jewish law code. The second book is:

"Jesus & Christian Origins outside the New Testament"

which includes early evidence from pagan and Jewish writers as well as from Christian apocrypha. The copies that I have were published by Wm B Eerdmans Publishing.
110 posted on 01/02/2006 7:14:03 PM PST by Pete from Shawnee Mission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Donald Meaker
But to be serious for a moment . . . the 6 A.D. census is mentioned in Josephus, but Luke also mentions the 6 A.D. census (in Acts) so he was aware of it also. The tally mentioned in Luke may have been an enrollment rather than a census, or it may have been while Quirinius was holding a lower or adjunct office. The evidence is by no means clear in either direction, and certainly it's not proof that Luke was dead wrong throughout.

Some scholars opine that Mark postdates and borrows from Matthew, rather than the other way around. The hypothetical "Quelle" text invented by German scholars figures largely in the "pious expansion" theory. The textual evidence is not entirely clear.

Nobody dates Matthew as late as 200 AD. That's absurd on its face, because the Church Fathers were commenting extensively on all the Gospels by that point. Most scholars place it between 60 AD and 85 AD.

111 posted on 01/02/2006 7:16:11 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Pete from Shawnee Mission

Thanx, it's a subject I get interested in now and then. Most of my readings were saying that they were the stories passed on by the actual apostle, but written by a follower of that apostle or some acquaintence.


112 posted on 01/02/2006 7:17:33 PM PST by bigsigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Pete from Shawnee Mission

BTW I think it was historian Michael Grant who made a case for the existence of Jesus by citing the Gospels including the agnostics. Something along the line that how did so many stories get written about one person by such a diverse group of people. He said from a historian's viewpoint it was expected and not unusual that the various accounts would not be exactly alike.


113 posted on 01/02/2006 7:21:14 PM PST by bigsigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
(John 20:24-29 NIV) Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. {25} So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe (pisteuo) it." {26} A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" {27} Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." {28} Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" {29} Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Hopefully, the Doubting Thomas in Italy will be assessed court costs and be subject to a penalty for a frivolous lawsuit.

114 posted on 01/02/2006 7:31:32 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
...how exactly did that Christian Church come into being?

It started with a Roman government commission to extend the life of military footware; as time went by, the inevitable 'mission creep' set in and the simple task of saving soles....

115 posted on 01/02/2006 7:32:38 PM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

The priest should have challenged the Judge to prove that Christ does NOT exist!


116 posted on 01/02/2006 7:34:00 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
The evidence is by no means clear in either direction, and certainly it's not proof that Luke was dead wrong throughout.

Perhaps the judge thinks Luke testified inconsistantly

117 posted on 01/02/2006 8:02:48 PM PST by Oztrich Boy (Free Speech is not for everyone, If you don't like it, then don't use it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Pete from Shawnee Mission

Thank you for saying that. When I was going thru my skeptical but open to the idea phase (shortly before I was saved) I did alot of reading, and this is one of the most convincing things I found. Why would people who should have known if it was not true, be willing to die horrible deaths for a lie? One or two crazies, perhaps, but all of them?
susie


118 posted on 01/02/2006 8:07:31 PM PST by brytlea (I'm not a conspiracy theorist....really.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch
What's idiotic about that judges order there are several historical figures where absolute historical physical(or multi-sourced!)proof is quite thin or non-existent. A good example that no one would claim didn't exist is Alexander the Great. We have several semi-legendary histories with some apparent embellishments (For example did you know that Alexander went deep-sea diving in a glass diving bell. I find that to be a bit of stretch !)
I once heard a historian say that sometimes the best proof a historical figure is the figures effect on history. If one uses that Christs existence is just as certain as Alexander's !
119 posted on 01/02/2006 8:11:36 PM PST by Reily (Reilly (Dr Doom))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Auntie Dem

Funny how the Bible, well documented and verified, is given less credibility than other ancient documents and events that have far less to back them up.


120 posted on 01/02/2006 8:17:47 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-174 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson