It wouldn't have made a bit of difference to him whether the witnesses wrote about Jesus while He was alive, because Cascioli wouldn't believe it anyway. Judging by his one-man campaign and wild accusations, I would say he is the one who should be charged with “abuse of popular credulity,” since he's appealing to the socialists and communists' beliefs.
And by the way...
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.
Why doesn't he prove that they weren't reliable witnesses.
Mr. Cascioli is a bitter old buggar for whom no amount of evidence shall suffice. There is enough historical evidence to demonstrate that Christ existed. However, Mr. Cascioli will not allow the facts to get in the way of his bulls**t.
For example - my dad is 80 years old and fought in WWII. I write down his first hand account. Is that an unreliable source because the author (me) was not alive during WWII?
Guess we'll have to jettison a lot of stuff, including most of Tacitus since he corresponded with the eyewitnesses (including Pliny the Younger's account of the eruption of Vesuvius) and didn't see most of the events himself.
Don't they have a Statute of Limitations in Italy? This suit should have been brought no later than the first century. Case dismissed.
the koran was written 3 generations (700ad) after the life of Mohhamed ended (app 630ad) ... bet the judge doesn't argue any problems of integrity about that