Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

Times Online UK ^ | January 3, 2006 | Richard Owen

[Victoria Delsoul]

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.

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.

[Oztrich Boy]

Teach the controversy

[Army Air Corps]

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.

[Ohioan from Florida]

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?

[AnAmericanMother]

Plenty of reliable witnesses live after the time of the events in question.

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.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Yep. Well, why confuse him with the facts when his mind is made up. Silly old coot.

[Ohioan from Florida]

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”

Ooops! I missed this part of the article.

[AnAmericanMother]

Well, the atheists argue that the mention of Christ in Josephus was a later interpolation inserted by the Evil Christians.

. . . just like those atheists who do the "Jesus Project" claim that any mention of miracles or deity was a "later interpolation".

Easy to disprove anything if you can just throw out the evidence you don't like . . .

[Bob J]

If you had continued reading to the next line you would have learned;

"The judge had earlier refused to take up the case, but was overruled last month by the Court of Appeal..."

[Victoria Delsoul]

He's got an agenda, and he wont let the facts get in the way of a good smear.

[editor-surveyor]

"Italy has its own version of the 9th Circuit circus, I see."

It appears that there is far more evidence for the existance of Christ than there is for Signor Cascioli.

[CzarNicky]

Sounds like a waste of a perfectly good BarBQ.

[sgtbono2002]

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.

[cowtowney]

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.

[LiteKeeper]

Prove Caesar existed. Prove Nero existed.

[calljack]

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."

[CaptainMorgantown]

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.

[Chode]

did those stooopidos over there use a Bible to Swear In the Wittiness???

[mware]

It would be kind of cool for Pope Benedict to make a guest appearance at the court on the day of the trial.

[TheCrusader]

""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”."

A week or two ago a FR member posted an article claiming Jesus Christ was not an historical figure. He claimed "the Church" added statements to Josephus' book "Antiquites" after he died --(Josephus was a 1st century secular historian who made mention of Jesus Christ). The moderator removed the article before I could pose this question to the author, (this question also pertains to the quote you noted above):
"If the 'the Church' helped to foster in any way the 'myth' that Jesus Christ was an actual historical figure, how pray tell, did the Christian Church come into being if Christ never lived?

As is plain to see, these people have to look skyward to see the ankles of morons.