did those stooopidos over there use a Bible to Swear In the Wittiness???Wouldn't you love to be the priest that hears this judges "confession"?
I think there is a line in CS Lewis' "Chronicles of Narnia" that basically says "Just because you cannot see it, does not mean that it is not there."
Ping for later digestion
Very telling!
Prove there was such a thing.
Why does he get to discount the Gospels? Why should he be able to do that?
Under this atheist's logic no one can prove anything by writing a testimony down today, because tomorrow he will reject it. He is saying because the people who wrote their testimonies of Jesus are dead, we can't really prove they actually knew and saw him. By his rule we can't prove Hitler existed--those photos and written reports by people who are now dead can't be trusted.
No, really...If I understand this correctly, he's basically saying that at least two and perhaps three respected and influential historians of the era either got conned or made stuff up. Is that right?
I'm sort of reminded of the Washington Mutual commercial about Jen, the integrity-challenged lawyer:
"Is DNA really [finger quotes] 'evidence'?"...[shakes head, mouths "no"]
Didn't the ancient Jewish historian, Josephus mention Christ in his writings? I'm sure I've read of Him in there. Are they going to say that Josephus' account doesn't count?
Ooops! I missed this part of the article.
Since Signor Cascioli is a person who once studied for the priesthood and then turned Atheist one has to wonder which of his prayers didnt get answered.
He shouldnt carry a grudge against Our Lord, but it seems most atheists do.
Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ
The name is so controversial. There seems to be a tendency to not speak his name. Only in church. That's bad.
I hope the day doesn't come when speaking his name will get you in trouble. The peacemaker was quite a radical.
Bring in a picture of the Crab Nebula and a baby in the womb. That would do it for me.
Or say "I believe jesus christ existed. You prove he didn't."
When it comes down to it, the only 'proof' we have on any event that took place 2000 years ago are the written and oral accounts that have been handed down to us through many generations. Either we find those accounts to be credible and reliable or we don't.
The author has every right to write a book that propounds his theory. The priest has every right to denounce the book from his pulpit or his newsletter. The absurdity of a court jumping into this argument and demand that one party 'prove' their side is ... well, absurd.
did those stooopidos over there use a Bible to Swear In the Wittiness???This is easy. There are two consistent eyewitness accounts from Matthew and John. There are also two investigative reports from Mark and Luke, which corroborate the accounts from the eyewitnesses. Each account was written independently in separate times and places. They represent evidence that any reasonable court would admit is proof beyond any doubt.
Except for eyewitness testimony from numerous sources, Jesus didn't exist.
Prove Jesus existed? The 4 eyewitness accounts described in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ought to do it.
It's a shame people can be so self centered as to not take stock in their own frailty and whether or not there is an afterlife.
But one day we will all find out for ourselves and things like this court order will be proven to be an annoyance to us and evidence that Jesus will use to cleanse the earth of non believers.
Off my soapbox...
Why can't the priest just ask the judge to prove that Christ doesn't exist?