Catholic Church get's sued over existence of Christ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

Why is it absurd? are you saying that if I say there is no God and the Bible is wrong that it should be judged by a member of the Church?

Courts are a place for evidence, not faith.

---

No, I'm not saying that. You're entitled to your own opinion and have a right to free speech.
So you shouldn't be judged by anybody. Neither am I a supporter of the catholic church.
That being sad, I find it absurd because the judge is a civil person who is to decide over
a more or less philosophical and century old dispute.
Whatever the outcome may be, the Catholic Church will never acknowledge him as an authority.
If he rules that Jesus did exist, The Vatikan will say: "See, we said it all the time."
If he rules that Jesus didn't exist, The Vatikan will say "Who is this judge guy anyway?"
Therefore the plaintiff has nothing to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul

No, I'm not saying that. You're entitled to your own opinion and have a right to free speech.
So you shouldn't be judged by anybody. Neither am I a supporter of the catholic church.
That being sad, I find it absurd because the judge is a civil person who is to decide over
a more or less philosophical and century old dispute.
Whatever the outcome may be, the Catholic Church will never acknowledge him as an authority.
If he rules that Jesus did exist, The Vatikan will say: "See, we said it all the time."
If he rules that Jesus didn't exist, The Vatikan will say "Who is this judge guy anyway?"
Therefore the plaintiff has nothing to win.

---

I'd imagine the plaintiff cares little about what the Vatican might say as he has raised a legal action to stop them from deceiving people, not a theological argument to say that religon in wrong.

I do not know how the legal adversarial system works in Italian courts, but I guess it would be great fun for the observer. I attended many lectures at the British School at Rome during my stay there and the ones presented by the Italians were the best as they got so worked up that you thought they would come to blows. Very often their stances were dictated by their politics, even in classics and archaeology, and you would get slanging matches between old left and right wing enemies. They were great characters.

The Vatican meets (mostly) the eight criteria for recognition as an independent country.
http://geography.about.com/od/politi...cancountry.htm

but I'm unclear whether Italian civil courts hold any jurisdiction there.

On the other hand, this case seems to be exercising the limits of anti-con-game laws. Did someone - Enrico Righi - intentionally lie (in this case, about the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth) in order to wrongfully profit from believers? And did he so profit?

My guess: court will rule that definitive proof of the actual existence of most individual humans 2,000 years ago is impossible to establish, to judicial standards. And there is no examinable corpse. Hence the existence or non-existence of Jesus is unproveable. He probably won't even address intent, profit, or harm.

well, in RE we were taught that there was more evidense for jesus than julieus ceaser. sounds like a publicity stunt to me the main argument is surely not whether jesus existed but his teachings.
How on earth could the disiples have just ''Invented'' Jesus and why did they then die horrendoius deaths still proclaiming not only his existence but also the valitiy of his teachings?

Im amazed that BP considers himself subject to the same sort of discrimination that Rosa Parks faced, ive never heard of Cafes with seperate rooms for atheists! :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

My guess: court will rule that definitive proof of the actual existence of most individual humans 2,000 years ago is impossible to establish, to judicial standards. And there is no examinable corpse. Hence the existence or non-existence of Jesus is unproveable. He probably won't even address intent, profit, or harm.

---

I think that's very likely.
Leaves us all back where it started. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

Courts are a place for evidence, not faith.

---

Which is exactly why this case should not be in the courts at all.

Lord knows (no pun intended) that I'm not the biggest fan of Christianity. But my distaste for it lies mainly in the fact that all too often, Christ's followers spend their time trying to tell me how to live my life. So I would be the biggest hypocrite in the world if I were to try telling Christians that because there was no real proof of Christ's existence or his miracles that they were no longer allowed to believe in him or preach their faith.

Now, if this priest was sneaking into public schools and trying to teach the existence of Christ in history class, that would be another matter altogether. But he's not, so I say let him be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

There is no reliable, independent evidence for JC's existence, certainly no official Roman records.
Pontius Pilate did exist, and he is a ruthless and rapacious procurator of Judaea in Josephus, not the kindly person of the NT. If the execution of a JC did happen, then crucifixion was the Roman punishment for JC's crimes (for insurrection - claiming he was the annointed one i.e. Christ/Messiah, the king of the Jews), and Pilate would certainly have punished him like this with no hesitation. The Jewish punishment was stoning for such blasephemy, yet they were blamed.
There was no census as stated in the New Testament.
The 'gospels' were anonymous documents written long after JC supposedly died. The names were added much later.
The earliest records accepted by scholars are the first few letters of Paul which make no mention of a living JC, the 'Christ' being treated symbolically. Most of his later letters are forgeries, probably of C2 AD to combat heresy and gnostic ideas. This makes them internally contradictory as a body of evidence because the earlier letters are clearly influenced by gnosticism.

You really need faith to be a Christian, so the core moral message of the NT (whatever that is, as it can be contradictory) should be a Christian's guide, not the unreliable fairy tales it contains.

---

The bible was no exception in being largely written several hundred years after the fact- many historical documents that are accepted as fact were written the same way. If you wish to dismiss the NT for the same reason, you're also dismissing much of what's known about ancient historical figures. Further, Jesus was mentioned in the works of the Jewish historian Josephus. It's rather hypocritical of some modern "enlightened historians" to try and assert that Jesus didn't exist because of a supposed lack of evidence- this has more to do with the anti-Christian bias that's so fashionable now days rather than intellectual honesty.

Quote:

---

One of the major problems with the legend hypothesis, however, which is almost never addressed by sceptical critics, is that the time between Jesus’s death and the writing of the gospels is just too short for this to happen. This point has been well-explained by A. N. Sherwin-White in his book Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament.{2} Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is a professional historian of times prior to and contemporaneous with Jesus. According to Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman and Greek history are usually biased and removed one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence the course of Roman and Greek history. For example, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander’s death, and yet classical historians still consider them to be trustworthy. The fabulous legends about Alexander the Great did not develop until during the centuries after these two writers. According to Sherwin-White, the writings of Herodotus enable us to determine the rate at which legend accumulates, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states that for the gospels to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be "unbelievable." More generations would be needed.

---

Quote:

---

Even Cascioli admits that the odds are against him, especially in Roman Catholic Italy.

"It would take a miracle to win," he joked.

---

Hehe. Best line I have seen in a news story recently.

This is a nation that is about 88% Catholic. Take 2 guesses who's going to win, or Forza Italia's out.

:laugh4: HAHAHAHAHA....great! :2thumbsup:

even just as a gag it´s well worth the effort ...


that reminds me.....


I was baptized against my will.....:help: .....I demand restitution dammit!...can anyone inform me of the current value of a pagan soul?.....those bastards are gonna pay and pay big!!!....*runs to the nearest court house* :idea2:

Jesus:
Existed? Yes.
Holy? No.

'Nuff said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

The bible was no exception in being largely written several hundred years after the fact- many historical documents that are accepted as fact were written the same way. If you wish to dismiss the NT for the same reason, you're also dismissing much of what's known about ancient historical figures. Further, Jesus was mentioned in the works of the Jewish historian Josephus. It's rather hypocritical of some modern "enlightened historians" to try and assert that Jesus didn't exist because of a supposed lack of evidence- this has more to do with the anti-Christian bias that's so fashionable now days rather than intellectual honesty.

---

I don't want to go into this at length, but one point may serve. The blatant Jesus reference in Josephus is widely accepted as an interpolation ... by Christians. Let's face it, for over 2000 years the Church/Christianity has a long and shoddy record of this kind of thing: forgeries, downright lies, etc. I don't trust any of it. You can if you want to, good on ya.

Not even a single link or even book title.

Trust some random (though senior patron) person on an internet forum?

:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

I don't want to go into this at length, but one point may serve. The blatant Jesus reference in Josephus is widely accepted as an interpolation ... by Christians. Let's face it, for over 2000 years the Church/Christianity has a long and shoddy record of this kind of thing: forgeries, downright lies, etc. I don't trust any of it. You can if you want to, good on ya.

---

True or untrue - early Christians were fodder in the Roman Games for the amusement of the Romans.


http://abacus.bates.edu/~mimber/Rciv/christianity.htm


http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/xtians.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

I don't want to go into this at length, but one point may serve. The blatant Jesus reference in Josephus is widely accepted as an interpolation ... by Christians. Let's face it, for over 2000 years the Church/Christianity has a long and shoddy record of this kind of thing: forgeries, downright lies, etc. I don't trust any of it. You can if you want to, good on ya.

---

And Josephus finished Antiquities of the Jews in around 93-94 AD so still not a contemporary source. I think the general view is that the first 3 gospels already had been done by that time and the early christians, which at that time was still more or less a jewish sect, would most likely not have been unknown to Josephus.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

Jesus:
Existed? Yes.
Holy? No.

'Nuff said.

---

My answers differ:

Existed? Wrong Tense.

Holy? Wholly.

'Nuff rejoinder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Jesus was mentioned in the works of the Jewish historian Josephus.

---

There is doubt about the authenticity of those references. Here's a paper discussing the references to Jesus in Josephus' Antiquities:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...html#reference

:inquisitive:

This probably has to top all frivilous lawsuits. :dizzy2:

I'm scared to see who wins... :shame:

This is probably the most futile and ridicolous case I've ever heard in all my life (and I heard of one in wich a bird testified :dizzy2: ). Besides proving negatives being imposible, this is not the way to attack the great monster, the quimera that's this great institution, "La Mafia".

Cascioli has my congratulations for trying something this radical and attack this retrograde institution and spreader of lies, but this is not the way to do it. One because it only concerns atheists. Second because, as said, it cannot be prooved. And finally third, there's better angles to attack this corrupt parasitarial fundation. As done with the "Mafia" the better way should be look into their accountability books and in their bancary accounts, I'm pretty sure that there's a lot of things going on.

Besides all that the article is no more than a joke, the outcome is so clear as the final words of Casciolli, they'll lose and the Church will continue to swim in gold as it has done for thousands of years.

EDIT: Spelling

The Church doesn't "swim in gold." Certainly your local branch doesn't. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

The Church doesn't "swim in gold." Certainly your local branch doesn't.

---

Well it surprises me that you actually answered to that irrelevancy in my post. Does it really matter? The Vatican sure swims in Gold and all branches of the Roman Catolic Apostolic Church are part of the Vatican, make your conclussions. Now if you're taking the metaphore for what it's, then think of this, the Church on my community has at least the value to save the "villa" right outside crossing the street. I'll not enter that discussion however, 1 because you don't live here, 2- because it's irrelevant to the notorious corruption of any organized religion, being only a lesser demonstration of a big canvas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

There is no reliable, independent evidence for JC's existence, certainly no official Roman records.
Pontius Pilate did exist, and he is a ruthless and rapacious procurator of Judaea in Josephus, not the kindly person of the NT. If the execution of a JC did happen, then crucifixion was the Roman punishment for JC's crimes (for insurrection - claiming he was the annointed one i.e. Christ/Messiah, the king of the Jews), and Pilate would certainly have punished him like this with no hesitation. The Jewish punishment was stoning for such blasephemy, yet they were blamed.
There was no census as stated in the New Testament.
The 'gospels' were anonymous documents written long after JC supposedly died. The names were added much later.
The earliest records accepted by scholars are the first few letters of Paul which make no mention of a living JC, the 'Christ' being treated symbolically. Most of his later letters are forgeries, probably of C2 AD to combat heresy and gnostic ideas. This makes them internally contradictory as a body of evidence because the earlier letters are clearly influenced by gnosticism.

You really need faith to be a Christian, so the core moral message of the NT (whatever that is, as it can be contradictory) should be a Christian's guide, not the unreliable fairy tales it contains.

---

The axe-grinding is deafening...

How about these guys?:

- Cornelius Tacitus
- Suetonius
- Plinius Secundus
- Thallus
- Phlegon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Encyclopaedia Brittanica

These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time--and on inadequate grounds--by several authors during the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."

---

...and the quest continues. Some people are desperate to discount his historicity, quite often because of personal gripes with the church or the church's dogma.

There is as much manuscript evidence for the existence of Jesus as there is for Julius Caesar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

The axe-grinding is deafening...

How about these guys?:

- Cornelius Tacitus
- Suetonius
- Plinius Secundus
- Thallus
- Phlegon



...and the quest continues. Some people are desperate to discount his historicity, quite often because of personal gripes with the church or the church's dogma.

There is as much manuscript evidence for the existence of Jesus as there is for Julius Caesar.

---

I think I'm going to take it upon myself to prove that Alexander the Great never existed. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

How about these guys?:

- Cornelius Tacitus
- Suetonius
- Plinius Secundus
- Thallus
- Phlegon

---

AFAIK none of them provides any further info that isnt already told by earlier Christian myths and are all like from 100+ AD. In what way are they evidence of the actual existence of Jesus or the details of his life?


CBR

Quote:

---

Cascioli has my congratulations for trying something this radical and attack this retrograde institution and spreader of lies, but this is not the way to do it. One because it only concerns atheists. Second because, as said, it cannot be prooved. And finally third, there's better angles to attack this corrupt parasitarial fundation. As done with the "Mafia" the better way should be look into their accountability books and in their bancary accounts, I'm pretty sure that there's a lot of things going on.

---

Its amusing how all these 'enlightened', 'tolerant' people are really so very intolerant of the Church. They can't stop with just not having anything to do with it, they have to actively attack the greatest force for good in the world.

Not surprising though.

Crazed Rabbit

Im sick of this Im more tolerant or Im tougher carp that people sling at eachother. Its two diffrent veiwpoints stop being so self indulgent

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

AFAIK none of them provides any further info that isnt already told by earlier Christian myths and are all like from 100+ AD. In what way are they evidence of the actual existence of Jesus or the details of his life?


CBR

---

Find me a contemporary biography of Alexander. Make sure it's less than 100yrs old, since anything older is apparently suspect. :wink:

Ok, the point I'm trying to hammer home is that almost everything we know about Alexander is from texts that were written hundreds of years after he lived- yet we accept it as fact (and Im not here to sincerely argue it isnt). Yet, we have people insisting that we must totally dimiss more contemporary references to Jesus, including the gospels, because they were written too long after his life. Im not even asking people to wholeheartedly agree with everything in the bible, but to try to say he never existed is just silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Find me a contemporary biography of Alexander. Make sure it's less than 100yrs old, since anything older is apparently suspect. :wink:

---

lets see...
A drastic change in the political situation in the middle east and lots of cities called Alexandria or something Alex that can be dated to that time.

Several successors and their relatives fighting wars for more than a hundred years in that area after his alleged death. etc etc

All of that fitting nicely with what the sources are telling us, but none of these sources are contemporary, as the early ones are AFAIK all lost but used in later sources so we actually do have some names of these early sources.

These later sources do have problems as they are all describing the person Alexander in slightly different ways. Some of the details are without doubt fantasy but to go so far and say that he never existed would be odd.

Oh and Alexnder was supposed to be a son of a god too but I dont think anyone are worshipping Alexander and Zeus these days.


CBR

So you couldnt find one?

I think it'd be really amusing to apply these same comically high standards applied to all historical documents- anything written more than 100 years after the fact is crap.~D