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

[Vast]

AN ITALIAN judge has ordered a priest to appear in court this month to prove that Jesus Christ existed.

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.

The Vatican has so far declined to comment.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1967413,00.html#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=World"

For those interested in the arguments against the existence of Jesus, I refer you to this http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html"

It’ll be very interesting to see how this turns out!

 

[Pengwuino]

One month to do it? Hell in the US, you can barely put murderers away in prison if they were caught in the act by police within a year let alone a month. I didn't know those italians were so damn efficient.

 

[Ubern0va]

I can't prove to a blind man that I can see. Does that mean I can't see?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I had thought it was pretty well accepted that he actually existed.

 

[Smasherman]

There are historical accounts of Christ's existence, I hear. Sorry I can't provide any links or anything, but I've heard of the "historical" Jesus in a very different light than the biblical Jesus, so I assume it's fairly well-accepted among non-christians that he did, in fact, exist.

 

[Pengwuino]

I also thought it was historically accepted that he did exist using evidence outside of the Gospel.

 

[cronxeh]

No body = no proof of existence

 

[Pengwuino]

No body = no proof of existence

I'm sure some murderers wish they could use that defense

 

[cronxeh]

I'm sure some murderers wish they could use that defense

show me the burial site of jesus, pull up his bones, do the analysis, show me the results and then we can talk about water walking and other shenanigans

 

[Pengwuino]

show me the burial site of jesus, pull up his bones, do the analysis, show me the results and then we can talk about water walking and other shenanigans

... this was 2000 years ago mind you...

Does scientific logic just go out the window when people argue against religion?

 

[cronxeh]

... this was 2000 years ago mind you...
Does scientific logic just go out the window when people argue against religion?

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.

 

[Pengwuino]

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.

So with that logic, only 1 or 2 humans existed 5.5 million years ago because that's all we've found? Maybe rome's population was only 10 or 20 people because I don't remember them uncovering a million human bodies... And maybe if you took some time to study up, they weren't exactly allowed to build a huge shrine in Christ's honor that would withstand 2,000 years in the first place.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

show me the burial site of jesus, pull up his bones, do the analysis, show me the results and then we can talk about water walking and other shenanigans

I for one was only talking about whether or not the man named Jesus existed and I think that is all the article is referring to aswell.
How many famous people's remains have we found from over 2000 years ago and how many have we not?

 

[franznietzsche]

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.

Mozart was buried in an unmarked grave, did he ever exist?

 

[cronxeh]

Mozart was buried in an unmarked grave, did he ever exist?

I donno, did he do something extraordinary that nobody else can?

 

[Entropy]

Why are they trying to proven whether or not he existed?

 

[DaveC426913]

I donno, did he do something extraordinary that nobody else can?

If he didn't do those things, he didn't exist?

 

[Vast]

I had thought it was pretty well accepted that he actually existed.

This is a very common misconception. I would like people to realize that there is a difference between history and the supernatural. We have historical evidence of hundreds if not thousands of people throughout history, spanning back many thousands of years. Take all the emperors, kings, Queens and philosophers, even living during the time of Jesus. This is hard evidence you can go see in museums, or the actual ruins themselves.

When it comes to Jesus however, the story is much different. There is no evidence apart from the gospels, which were written many years after he was supposed to have died.

Luigi Cascioli is saying that Jesus was remodeled on someone called John Gamala, and his accusations are that this is an abuse of popular credulity, and impersonation, which are offences under the Italian penal code.

More can be found http://www.luigicascioli.it/processo_eng.php"

 

[Smurf]

I donno, did he do something extraordinary that nobody else can?

Composing and playing complicated music peices flawlessly when he was 10 sounds pretty extraordinary to me.

Also, ever heard of the Mozart Effect?

 

[Evo]

Mozart was buried in an unmarked grave, did he ever exist?

Scientists May Have Found Mozart's Skull

Associated Press
By WILLIAM J. KOLE , 01.04.2006, 10:16 AM

Have scientists found Mozart's skull? Researchers said Tuesday they'll reveal the results of DNA tests in a documentary film airing this weekend on Austrian television as part of a year of celebratory events marking the composer's 250th birthday.

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/01/04/ap2427389.html

 

[selfAdjoint]

Aside from the gospels (and of course the rest of the New Testament), there is the book The History of the Jews by Josephus, a Romanized Jew. Describing the state of Judea in the time of Claudius (some 25 years after the supposed date of the crucifixion), it mentions the christians of that day and says a few words about their founder, but the text of Josephus has been worked over a lot by later christian apologists. People determined to be skeptical about Jesus' existence therefore reject it root and branch and deny it as evidence.

I myself don't know, I have read the passages in question and they look to me pretty clearly to be an original text describing neutrally something mildly interesting - a teacher who was killed and whose disciples have persisted instead of fading away as would be expected - plus some very obvious additions that express christian doctrine. You pays your money and takes your choice.

As has been pointed out many, many times, the historical Jesus is like a Rorschach blot, you find there what you bring to it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This particular article isn't exactly a good one it doesn't look like but it does give a list of historical references to Jesus aside from the Gospels...

I. Historical Writters (Non Christian) mention Jesus


A.Josephus (1st cent)
B.Tacitus
C.Thallus (?)
D. Phelgon
E. Lucian
F-Suetonius,
G.Galen,
H.Celsus, (1st)
I.Talmud (Jewish)(1st)*
J.Numenius (Second cent.)
K.Galerius (Second Cent.)

II Christian

A.Paul (1st)
B.Philip's Daughters
C.Clement (1st)*
D.Papias*
E.Iranaeus
F.Polycarp
G.Heggesipus

* Clment proves historicity of Peter. Eugene R. Fairweather argues that Clement offers good evidence. Historicity of Peter greatly increases probablity that Jesus lived. Same with Daughters of Philip, because they help secure the historicity of principle charcter's in the drama of Jesus' life.

*cliamed to know directly several eye witnesses to Jesus' life; including non Apostles Aristion and Elder John. We do have a fragment of this independent of Eusebius.

* I know the actual work is from about 300, but Edersheim shows that it is drawn from ealrier soruces, going back to the first century. For one thing, the material is the same as that presented by Celsus.


III. Lost Gospels

19 lost Gosopels all dating between AD 60 and 150. Many of them older than cononicals. All of them portray Jesus as existing in history and leading public ministry.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-51974.html

I don't know how good those sources would be either it's just something I found.

 

[cronxeh]

Composing and playing complicated music peices flawlessly when he was 10 sounds pretty extraordinary to me.
Also, ever heard of the Mozart Effect?

Yes but people can perform his music. Composing like, or even better has been achieved by Beethoven, this is undisputed.

Has Jesus's experiment been replicated? Has his body been found? Why would a religion which was originated around one man who taught peace and tolerance go on Crusades? Why would it declare a 'war on terror' ?

Doesnt bible teach 'dont overcome evil with evil, but overcome evil with good' ?

 

[franznietzsche]

I donno, did he do something extraordinary that nobody else can?

Yeah. Wrote The Marriage of Figaro. With a dance in the opera. In germany under whats-his-face (ballet was illegal).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yes but people can perform his music. Composing like, or even better has been achieved by Beethoven, this is undisputed.
Has Jesus's experiment been replicated? Has his body been found? Why would a religion which was originated around one man who taught peace and tolerance go on Crusades? Why would it declare a 'war on terror' ?
Doesnt bible teach 'dont overcome evil with evil, but overcome evil with good' ?

Again I think we ought to remember that solely the existence of the man whom the legends are attributed to is what is being debated here.

If you want to argue the morality of his followers there are threads that cover that already I believe.

 

[cronxeh]

Again I think we ought to remember that solely the existence of the man whom the legends are attributed to is what is being debated here.
If you want to argue the morality of his followers there are threads that cover that already I believe.

That is true

However what I see here is the function the Church plays with the authors of the Bible and how they have used the myth or made it up themselves to create the outcome we see today. The very fact that there are no facts or thanks to resurrection possibility of such fact, suggests to me personally that not only did Jesus never exist, but that the people that keep propagating the myth are the ones who directly benefit from it. As a result, you should take a close look at who is in control of large funds and military powers today.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That is true
However what I see here is the function the Church plays with the authors of the Bible and how they have used the myth or made it up themselves to create the outcome we see today. The very fact that there are no facts or thanks to resurrection possibility of such fact, suggests to me personally that not only did Jesus never exist, but that the people that keep propagating the myth are the ones who directly benefit from it. As a result, you should take a close look at who is in control of large funds and military powers today.

The idea that the church proliferated a false history to gain it's position is definitely part of the case. This accusation though rests on the ability of the case to prove that Jesus never existed. It may also have to prove that the church knowingly proliferated false history. I haven't read the book and would be interested in doing so. So far what I have read elsewhere though points to Jesus more than likely having actually lived. The vast majority of historians (and even those religions aside from christianity) have accepted this as fact based on what evidence exists. You can not dismiss his existence merely because a body has never been found. There are plenty of famous historical figures whose bodies were never found. They can not even determine whether or not they have found the body of Vlad Tepes and most of the stories about him are filled with superstition and claims that he was the devil or a vampire. It's still considered an undisputed fact that the man existed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

DID JESUS OF NAZARETH ACTUALLY EXIST?
All sides to the question

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

 

[Jelfish]

It's possible that a man named Jesus back then. It was actually a fairly common name.

Yes but people can perform his music. Composing like, or even better has been achieved by Beethoven, this is undisputed.
Has Jesus's experiment been replicated?

The ability to replicate his supposed miracles (including the ressurection) is never going to happen, nor will there be any definitive proof that Jesus was really some higher being. It's for the same reason why scientists will never simply accept that a natural phenomenon is caused by a higher being. There's a difference between science and faith, and Jesus's miracles are based on faith of those who believe it, not emperical data. Afterall, if there were any real evidence for any religion, it wouldn't be a faith any more, would it?

 

[JasonRox]

By the looks of it, most of you don't know what it takes to prove something it court.

All you have to do is show that it is believeable, and reasonable for a person to believe it.

It's not that difficult.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[JasonRox]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.

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).

 

[GeorginaS]

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.

 

[scott_alexsk]

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

 

[Jelfish]

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

 

[scott_alexsk]

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

 

[GeorginaS]

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.

 

[Anttech]

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..

 

[scott1]

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.

 

[Moonbear]

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.

 

[cronxeh]

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

 

[moose]

Have I ever posted here my ideas on how some religions were probably formed in order to gain power?

 

[Vast]

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!

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[G01]

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.

 

[Anttech]

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?

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[scott1]

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?

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.