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.”
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?
Italy must have some interesting rules about what can and cannot be published in a parish newsletter.
Thanx
[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.
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.
Or, when cussing.
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 >
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hopefully, the Doubting Thomas in Italy will be assessed court costs and be subject to a penalty for a frivolous lawsuit.
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....
The priest should have challenged the Judge to prove that Christ does NOT exist!
Perhaps the judge thinks Luke testified inconsistantly
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
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.
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.