did those stooopidos over there use a Bible to Swear In the Wittiness???
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.”
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.
Teach the controversy
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.
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?
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.
Yep. Well, why confuse him with the facts when his mind is made up. Silly old coot.
Ooops! I missed this part of the article.
. . . 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 . . .
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..."
He's got an agenda, and he wont let the facts get in the way of a good smear.
It appears that there is far more evidence for the existance of Christ than there is for Signor Cascioli.
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.
Prove Caesar existed. Prove Nero existed.
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???
It would be kind of cool for Pope Benedict to make a guest appearance at the court on the day of the trial.
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.
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.