Can you prove Christ exists in a court of law? We’ll soon see.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vast
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Law
Click For Summary
An Italian judge has summoned a priest to court to provide evidence of Jesus Christ's existence, following claims by Luigi Cascioli that no reliable historical evidence supports Jesus' life outside of Gospel accounts. Cascioli argues that Christianity lacks a factual basis, while others in the discussion reference historical texts, such as those by Josephus and Tacitus, that mention Jesus. The debate highlights differing views on the distinction between historical evidence and religious belief, with some asserting that the absence of physical remains does not negate the possibility of Jesus' existence. The Vatican has not commented on the case, which raises questions about the intersection of faith and historical inquiry. The outcome of this legal challenge could have significant implications for discussions around the historical Jesus.
  • #31
I just can't believe that they're going to waste the money on it, I guess they couldn't refuse under Italian law?

I just think it's frivolous.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Evo said:
I just can't believe that they're going to waste the money on it, I guess they couldn't refuse under Italian law?
I just think it's frivolous.

It's a waste of money, but then it's only a month.

If this was done around here, it would extend to atleast a year. Imagine the cost of that.
 
  • #33
JasonRox said:
It's a waste of money, but then it's only a month.
If this was done around here, it would extend to atleast a year. Imagine the cost of that.
Oh here, there would be protests, bombs, it would cost a fortune just for security. I'm surprised there's not more of an uproar in Italy, it is the center of the Catholic religion.
 
  • #34
Evo said:
I just can't believe that they're going to waste the money on it, I guess they couldn't refuse under Italian law?
I just think it's frivolous.
It seems to be a legal attack on the Catholic Church which as you mentioned is a very prominent organization in the area. He's trying to prove "popular credulity"..
According to article 661 of the Italian Penal Code, there is an abuse of popular credulity when someone, by means of fraud, deceives a great number of people. In this particular case, the ministers of religion of the Catholic Church, like Righi in the present case, by committing historical falsity, therefore presenting invented facts as if true and actually occurred – but useful to religious doctrine – they deceive all the people that come into contact with the teachings of such religion, by inducing them to believe in that religion, not on the basis of purely theological reasoning (totally legitimate and admissible), but on the basis of a deceptive representation of the facts.

Ivan said:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm[/quote]
Interesting. Though he seems to be a bit biased and has misrepresented the correlation between Christianity and Mithraism by what I have read. A quick check shows that material evidence of Mithraism didn't show up in Rome until about the same time that the evidence of Jesus was showing up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism#Mithraism_in_early_Rome
Christianity and Mithraism grew up together pretty much and eventually melded together when Mithraism disappeared which is why most christians celebrate Christmas on Dec 25th(The Festival of the Sun).
Christianity was actually more popular than Mithraism in general since Mithraism was exclusive in regards to membership. Since peasants, slaves, and women were all allowed to be Christians Christianity was much more popular. Among the aristocracy Mithraism was more popular.
It wasn't a Lion and Lamb but a Lion and Bull and as far as I have read (source Arkon Daraul - Secret Societies a history) these icons only developed in the later part of the Mithraist religion which actually started as something else entirely a couple thousand years prior to the first century AD. It was originally a cult based around the worship of a particular Djinn (not even named Mithras).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
I’ve seen a couple of references here to people thinking that there existed proof of Jesus’ existence. I have no clue about the credentials of the fellow who wrote this article, http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm" however he does raise a credible question about a third of the way down the page in a section entitled, “What About Writings During the Life of Jesus?” His assertions throughout this particular section are entirely verifiable. There are writings about other religious leaders, famous people of the time, rabble-rousers and whatnot by scholars and philosophers. The Romans were famous record-keepers about everything, and yet there does not exist one piece of contemporaneous writing about the Jesus who began Christianity.

To say we’d have to produce a corpse is a silly argument. But, I like this argument about, given that Jesus was supposed to have been known to everyone, far and wide etc., how come no one mentioned him who was alive at the same time as him? It’s an interesting point.

Meeting the legal test of “proof”, as Jasonrox points out, is worth some consideration. Civil courts generally have a different test of proof than criminal courts, criminal courts requiring “beyond reasonable doubt” and civil courts usually requiring “is it reasonable to believe or think”. Those are two very different standards.

It will be interesting to see what conclusions the Italian court comes to.

Edited to add paragraph breaks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
Has Jesus's experiment been replicated?[
By the way possesive forms of ancient names ending in s do not have another s added onto them. So names like Jesus and Achilles in their possessive form are just Jesus' and Achilles'.
-Scott
 
  • #37
scott_alexsk said:
By the way possesive forms of ancient names ending in s do not have another s added onto them. So names like Jesus and Achilles in their possessive form are just Jesus' and Achilles'.
-Scott

Actually both ways are acceptable and for some, adding the 's for names ending in "s" is preferred. It's a matter of consistancy, really.

Here are some sources that give some explanation:
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/possessives.htm
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/p.html
 
  • #38
The only reason I say that is because me English teacher had a real technical English book that outlined the specifics for possessives of most ancient names. It is just my opinion but I would think that an up-to-date text on English would be more reliable than an internet source.
-Scott
 
  • #39
Well, we can get onto possessive word-form usage rather than talking about historical Jesus. According to The Elements of Style by William Strunk and E.B. White -- a renowned offline resource but also found online -- possessive usage goes like this:

II. ELEMENTARY RULES OF USAGE

1. Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's.
Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write,

Charles's friend
Burns's poems
the witch's malice

This is the usage of the United States Government Printing Office and of the Oxford University Press.

Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names in -es and -is, the possessive Jesus', and such forms as for conscience' sake, for righteousness' sake. But such forms as Achilles' heel, Moses' laws, Isis' temple are commonly replaced by

the heel of Achilles
the laws of Moses
the temple of Isis

The pronominal possessives hers, its, theirs, yours, and oneself have no apostrophe.
http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html#1"

However, that's American usage. My Canadian university grammar text tells me that any name/noun ending in s takes the possessive with only an apostrophe and no second s. This is contrary to Misters Strunk and White.

In other words, it's contested except when it comes to ancient names like Jesus. Everyone agrees apostrophe, no extra s in that case.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
Interesting legal action...

not only does Christ appear in Christainity, but also in jewism and Islam, and most other denomination of the "one god" religions. Talk about opening a can of worms! So if the Christian church made it all up so to speak, how did they coherece the other relgion groups to do the same? Considering all the waring and hatred between them.

No body = no proof of existence

I don't think that is reasonable agument to disproof he exsited or not..
 
  • #41
cronxeh said:
I don't care how old it is. Oldest bones of a man found are 5.5 million years old. We have bones of dinosaurs which are 65+ million years old. I'm pretty sure if he was that important they would mark his grave somehow. Instead what we get is some resurrection crap.
Do you think there going do some gentic testing on him?They didn't even know that DNA existed back and even if they do find his bones there won't be any DNA in it so you couldn't prove that there his bones.
Some other reilgons believe that jeus existed.
Some other reilgons believe that Jeues existed inculding Islam.But they didn't call him Jeuses,They have two main between chirstans one that
he wasn't the son of God 2 he didn't die the cross.Some Hindu's believe in Jeus but they have differn't views on him some even believe he spent the"lost years" in India.Gandhi considered Jesus one of his main teachers and inspirations for nonviolent reistence.
 
  • #42
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.

Talk about a non sequitur...since when has reliable evidence been required for religious beliefs? This guy seems a bit confused about what religion is.
 
  • #43
scott1 said:
Do you think there going do some gentic testing on him?They didn't even know that DNA existed back and even if they do find his bones there won't be any DNA in it so you couldn't prove that there his bones.
Some other reilgons believe that jeus existed.
Some other reilgons believe that Jeues existed inculding Islam.But they didn't call him Jeuses,They have two main between chirstans one that
he wasn't the son of God 2 he didn't die the cross.Some Hindu's believe in Jeus but they have differn't views on him some even believe he spent the"lost years" in India.Gandhi considered Jesus one of his main teachers and inspirations for nonviolent reistence.

You missing my point slightly. If they found the grave of Jesus, there won't be Christianity. No resurrection = no religion. Its as simple as that, and the Christians don't quite see the fallacy of their beliefs, which to me is comical :biggrin:
 
  • #44
Have I ever posted here my ideas on how some religions were probably formed in order to gain power?
 
  • #45
Moonbear said:
Talk about a non sequitur...since when has reliable evidence been required for religious beliefs? This guy seems a bit confused about what religion is.

I guess this is where the problem lies. If faith is based on a fragmented and flimsy foundation, one cannot be sure as to the accuracy and reliability of the claims being made. A critical thinker can easily spot the holes in the doctrines which have their foundations buried in unsupported, unsubstantiated or otherwise mythical origins, and it is this which Cascioli is objecting to. If it is becoming increasingly clear that the church constructed the story of Jesus, manipulated certain historical elements, for financial gain or power, then they would be guilty of “abusing popular credulity” as Cascioli put it.

I think as an Atheist he knows exactly what religion is; a system of beliefs designed to manipulate the minds of their followers.

Maybe this is a sign of the times? Maybe its time organized religions began relinquishing some of their rigidly held ideas. Do you think they can do that? I don’t, and I think it demands a more confronting approach. It’s time we stopped being so sympathetic!
 
  • #46
One of the reasons that organized religion is still around is that there are so many people that need an emotional crutch. They need to belong, they need to feel loved, even if that "love" is fabricated, they need to be told what to do and what to think, they may be frightened of dying and the thought of an afterlife helps calm those fears. They may belong out of fear of what could happen to them if they don't believe. People that belong to an organized religion have some need it is filling for them, even if they don't realize it. They can't just give it up.
 
  • #47
Moonbear said:
Talk about a non sequitur...since when has reliable evidence been required for religious beliefs? This guy seems a bit confused about what religion is.

Someone should give this advice to the Intelligent Design people.:biggrin:
 
  • #48
One of the reasons that organized religion is still around is that there are so many people that need an emotional crutch. They need to belong, they need to feel loved, even if that "love" is fabricated, they need to be told what to do and what to think, they may be frightened of dying and the thought of an afterlife helps calm those fears. They may belong out of fear of what could happen to them if they don't believe. People that belong to an organized religion have some need it is filling for them, even if they don't realize it. They can't just give it up.

Sorry Evo but this time I have to say I don't agree with what you are saying. Perhaps some people need religon for a crutch, but most people I know who have faith, and conform to a religon, were brought up within that enviorment, and culture.

For example I wouldn't say that muslims in the Middle East are islamic because they need an emotional crutch, they are islamic because that is the environment and status quo of the place there were raised. There parents are Muslim, there Brothers and Sisters are Mulsim, and all there friends are. Same as Buddists in tibet, same as Orthodox Greeks in Greece, same as Jews in Isreal.

There are over 1 Billion Christians on Earth, and another Billion Islamic's to say that this many people on Earth conform to organised relgion because there are emotionaly insecure that they need a crutch is highly unlikely would you not aggree?
 
Last edited:
  • #49
Anttech said:
Sorry Evo but this time I have to say I don't agree with what you are saying. Perhaps some people need religon for a crutch, but most people I know who have faith, and conform to a religon, were brought up within that enviorment, and culture.

For example I wouldn't say that muslims in the Middle East are islamic because they need an emotional crutch, they are islamic because that is the environment and status quo of the place there were raised. There parents are Muslim, there Brothers and Sisters are Mulsim, and all there friends are. Same as Buddists in tibet, same as Orthodox Greeks in Greece, same as Jews in Isreal.

There are over 1 Billion Christians on Earth, and another Billion Islamic's to say that this many people on Earth conform to organised relgion because there are emotionaly insecure that they need a crutch is highly unlikely would you not aggree?
Most people were born into religion, but there is some reason why they can't walk away from it. Fear perhaps, of punishment either in this life or after, fear of not fitting in. Perhaps it personally gives them a sense of fulfillment to "belong". There is "something" that they are getting out of it. People that don't belong to an organized religion were probably born into a religion, but made the decision that they didn't need to belong. They realized that they didn't need what organized religion is selling. I think most religions sell "salvation" at the very least.
 
Last edited:
  • #50
cronxeh said:
You missing my point slightly. If they found the grave of Jesus, there won't be Christianity. No resurrection = no religion. Its as simple as that, and the Christians don't quite see the fallacy of their beliefs, which to me is comical
Your saying that if they found his grave that whould mean that there's no resurrection?Then when people die why doesn't bodies go up to heaven with them?
cronxeh said:
No body = no proof of existence
And why did you say this when you think finding his grave means that he doesn't exist?And if they did find his grave there whould go reason why they didn't find his body because the bible says when died his body dispared before he was ressuercted.:smile: :smile: :smile:
 
  • #51
Scott1 said:
And why did you say this when you think finding his grave means that he doesn't exist?And if they did find his grave there whould go reason why they didn't find his body because the bible says when died his body dispared before he was ressuercted.
I think his point is that it is awefully convenient for them.
They believe that this man existed and did these wonderful things. If they are asked to provide physical evidence that he existed in the form of a body or grave then well they will just show you the last chapter of the story. You see he was transported to heaven wholely after being ressurected from the grave and this was proof that he was the son of god. So their proof that he was the son of god conveniently eradicates the proof that he even existed in the first place.


I found a magic monkey. I knew that he was magic when he vanished without a trace. You believe me don't you?
 
  • #52
TheStatutoryApe said:
I found a magic monkey. I knew that he was magic when he vanished without a trace. You believe me don't you?
I need know more about the monkey frist befor I can belive.Right know I'am not sure since because your saying that because your using it so you can argue with me.
 
  • #53
Vast said:
Maybe this is a sign of the times? Maybe its time organized religions began relinquishing some of their rigidly held ideas. Do you think they can do that? I don’t, and I think it demands a more confronting approach. It’s time we stopped being so sympathetic!
Well there goes our freedom of belief then huh? Time to get confrontational and tell people what is or is not ok to believe in? What a lovely idea.
 
  • #54
scott1 said:
I need know more about the monkey frist befor I can belive.Right know I'am not sure since because your saying that because your using it so you can argue with me.
That's ok. I was being facetious.:smile:
 
  • #55
TheStatutoryApe said:
That's OK. I was being facetious.:smile:
:smile:
I know, sorry for posting a confusing response.I was kind of planing you were going to post something about that monkey doing miracles and stuff but then I was going argue and say why.I think it's not How Jesus did the miracles is why believe in him I think it's why he did those mircales is why people believe in him.
 
  • #56
TheStatutoryApe said:
Well there goes our freedom of belief then huh? Time to get confrontational and tell people what is or is not ok to believe in? What a lovely idea.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying we need to be more critical of Religious organizations and the doctrines they teach. At the moment the Vatican is considering doing away with the idea of limbo. This is an extremely ludicrous idea which only now in 2006 is the church reevaluating this idea. Pope John Paul with some reluctance, accepted the theory of evolution, yet there are cardinals that still oppose it strongly. Don’t you agree that these ideas and beliefs are spoon fed to people, not independently thought up? This is what I’m saying needs to be challenged.
 
  • #57
Most people were born into religion, but there is some reason why they can't walk away from it. Fear perhaps, of punishment either in this life or after, fear of not fitting in. Perhaps it personally gives them a sense of fulfillment to "belong". There is "something" that they are getting out of it. People that don't belong to an organized religion were probably born into a religion, but made the decision that they didn't need to belong. They realized that they didn't need what organized religion is selling. I think most religions sell "salvation" at the very least. -Evo
That includes scientology right :-p ?
 
  • #58
Vast said:
You misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying we need to be more critical of Religious organizations and the doctrines they teach. At the moment the Vatican is considering doing away with the idea of limbo. This is an extremely ludicrous idea which only now in 2006 is the church reevaluating this idea. Pope John Paul with some reluctance, accepted the theory of evolution, yet there are cardinals that still oppose it strongly. Don’t you agree that these ideas and beliefs are spoon fed to people, not independently thought up? This is what I’m saying needs to be challenged.
Most individual's ideas are spoon fed to them instead of independantly thought up, including tried tested scientific ideas.
Essentially you are saying that the these people should not hold certain beliefs and that we ought to do something about it akin to what Cascioli is doing.
Do you really think that people will react well to such an endeavour? Do you really care if you are insulting and disrespecting these people by telling them their beliefs are ludicrous?