Italian priest ordered to prove Jesus existed

[Cowperson]

A priest has been ordered by a judge in Italy to prove in court that Jesus existed.

Should be interesting . . . . because he won't be able to do it.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E29677,00.html

Cowperson

[AC]

Can't wait to see this unfold.

[Jiggy_12]

Awesome.

It's about time something like this happened. Should be quite interesting to hear the results.

[Thunderball]

they can definitely prove Jesus existed. He's in the old roman censuses... however... they'd have a real tough time proving he did what he did.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

A priest has been ordered by a judge in Italy to prove in court that Jesus existed.

Should be interesting . . . . because he won't be able to do it.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E29677,00.html

Cowperson

Well to find definite hard proof......nope. More than enough circumstantial evidence to though.

...Troy was Homer's made up story until a German dug up Troy of Aniquity.

[Mightyfire89]

nm

[Cheese]

Well this should be a fun case...I wonder if the Vatican will send their lawyers off to Italy to support this Priest?

"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.

Well that explanation is a great first shot by the Priest!

Heres a well written piece from the Freedom from Religion Foundation...

Jesus stuff
Did Jesus exist?

A small number of scholars[9], known informally as "mythicists," insist there is no convincing evidence for a historical Jesus at all. If the entire story is a myth, then he could hardly have risen from the dead.
The life of Jesus is not corroborated. Not a single word about Jesus appears outside of the New Testament in the entire first century, even though many writers documented first-hand the early Roman Empire in great detail, including careful accounts of the time and place where Jesus supposedly taught[10]. The little paragraph about Jesus that appears in Josephus' Antiquities (written after 90 CE) is regarded by liberal and conservative scholars to have been either entirely interpolated or drastically altered by a later generation of believers, probably by the dishonest Christian historian Eusebius in the 4th century[11]. (Whichever view is right, they both agree that early Christians tampered with documents, a fact that must bear on the reliability of the New Testament writings.)
The handful of 2nd-century references to "Christ" are too late to be of much value[12]. They are brief 2nd- or 3rd-hand accounts of what some people by that time believed had happened in their distant past, and none of them mention the name "Jesus." They are hearsay, not history.
The silence of Paul is also a problem. Paul wrote his letters many years before the Gospels, and it appears he was unaware of anything said in them about Jesus, except for some wording from a Last Supper ritual. Paul never met Jesus and never quoted the Jesus of the Gospels, even when that would have served his purposes. He sometimes disagreed with Jesus[13]. He never mentioned a single deed or miracle of Jesus. If Jesus had been a real person, certainly Paul, his main cheerleader, would have talked about him as a man. The "Christ" in Paul's epistles is mainly a supernatural figure, not a flesh and blood man of history.[14]
Mythicists notice that there are many pagan parallels to the resurrection story. The Greek god Dionysus was said to be the "Son of Zeus." He was killed, buried, and rose from the dead and now sits at the right hand of the father. His empty tomb at Delphi was long preserved and venerated by believers. The Egyptian Osiris, two millennia earlier, was said to have been slain by Typhon, rose again, and became ruler of the dead. Adonis and Attis also suffered and died to rise again.
The Persian god Mithra, revered by many Romans, was said to have been born of a virgin in a sacred birth-cave of the Rock on December 25, witnessed by shepherds and Magi bringing gifts. He raised the dead, healed the sick, made the blind see and the lame walk, and exorcised devils. Mithra celebrated a Last Supper with his twelve disciples before he died. His image was buried in a rock tomb, but he was withdrawn and said to live again. His triumph and ascension to heaven were celebrated at the spring equinox (Easter).[15]
Anybody who was anybody in those days was born of a virgin and ascended to heaven. The Roman historian Suetonius, whose brief 2nd-century mention of "Chrestus" in Rome is sometimes offered as evidence of a historical Jesus (though few believe Jesus visited Rome, and "Chrestus" is not "Jesus"), also reported that Caesar Augustus bodily ascended into heaven when he died.[16]
Christianity appears to have been cut from the same fabric as pagan mythology, and some early Christians admitted it. Arguing with pagans around 150 CE, Justin Martyr said: "When we say that the Word, who is the first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus)."[17]
If early Christians, who were closer to the events than we are, said the story of Jesus is "nothing different" from paganism, can modern skeptics be faulted for suspecting the same thing?
Critics are not agreed on the degree of relevance of the pagan parallels to Jesus, and the number of true mythicists is a tiny minority among scholars, but it doesn't matter much. Even if Jesus did exist, that does not mean he rose from the dead.
The Jesus of history is not the Jesus of the New Testament. Many skeptics believe there might have existed a self-proclaimed messiah figure named Yeshua (there were many others[18]) on whom the later New Testament legend was loosely based, but they consider the exaggerated miracle-working resurrecting Jesus character to be a literary creation of a later generation of believers. The Gospels, written many decades after the fact, are a blend of fact and fantasy--historical fiction--and although the proportions of the blend may differ from scholar to scholar, no credible historians take them at 100% face value.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Great stuff Cheese. This debate is going to be an interesting one.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Well to find definite hard proof......nope. More than enough circumstantial evidence to though.

There's no circumstantial evidence that holds up under examination either.

I've found this to be a very thorough look at the issue:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

A middle of the road look is here:

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

You'll remember the gigantic hope a few years ago that came out of the purported discovery of the burial box of Joseph, the brother of Jesus. It would have been the first direct archeological evidence from the time of Jesus. It was a fraud.

Jesus appears to be a complete myth . . . . . .

I'm agnostic. I'm not a fan of organized religion - and this kind of thing just gives you another reason to be suspicious - but I hold out some hope God might be out there somewhere.

Cowperson

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Well to find definite hard proof......nope. More than enough circumstantial evidence to though.

...Troy was Homer's made up story until a German dug up Troy of Aniquity.

Not to digress, but even the site of Troy is being challenged - some scholars argue Troy is off the English coast not in Turkey.

On subject - most of the "circumstantial evidince" played for popular consumption (tv specials, newspaper articles) mostly dance around the "Was it possible?" / "Was it more likely that..." scenarios. Eg. "it's possible Joseph & Mary came to Bethlehem for the census, but more likely they went from Nazareth to Tiberias."

I don't recall surviving Roman Census' from Early Christianity class - a few more books for me to re-read.

I just borrowed "The Pegan Christ" by Tom Harpur from the library - I expect it will read a lot like Cheese's post (which was excelant, BTW). I wonder about the arguement regarding Paul's letters, though.

Cheese- Paul never met Jesus and never quoted the Jesus of the Gospels

, even when that would have served his purposes. He sometimes disagreed with Jesus

Depends on what his purposes are - He preached "The Word" to gentiles to A) increase it's popularity in the world (maybe) or B) to make it unpalateable to prospective Jewish converts (possibly)


Interestingly, I wonder, is there any mention of a "rogue Rabbi from Nazaereth" or "rabbi Jesus" in Jewish writings of the time?

[troutman]

Can we get that judge from Pennsylvania?

I used to think that Jesus probably lived, but that he was a human (not a divine entity born by virgin birth, and resurrected after death).

The more I have studied the topic, I think it is far more likely than not that Jesus is entirely a mythical creation (and not a very original one either). I don't know what the standard of proof in the Italian court will be. Even on a balance of probabilities, I don't think the priest can prove to an objective court that Jesus existed. There is not much reliable evidence. What are they going to do; pull out the Shroud of Turin?

www.jesuspuzzle.com

The sheen has come off the biblical record, or perhaps it's the blinders that have finally come off many of those engaged in examining it. At the same time, certain elements of the population have undergone a maturation. For them, the advance of science and rationality make it no longer possible to accept the old stories as factual, or even as inspiring, much less pointing to some eternal truth. Those books on which so much of western culture has been built are increasingly being seen for what they are: products of a primitive and superstitious age, rooted in ignorance and ancient fantasy.

This question can never be answered with 100% certainty. If Jesus is mythical, this need not be the end of Christianity. The Church will move to a less literal reading of the bible. Some branches are already emphasizing the metaphorical lessons.

Too many of our best scholars, themselves indoctrinated from infancy in a religion of one kind or another based upon the Bible, are so locked into the idea of their own god as a supernatural fact -- something final, not symbolic of transcendence, but a personage with a character and will of his own - that they are unable to grasp the idea of a worship that is not of the symbol but of its reference, which is of a mystery of much greater age and of more immediate inward reality than the name-and-form of any historical ethinic idea of a deity, whatsoever ... and is of a sophistication that makes the sentimentalism of our popular Bible-story theology seem undeveloped.
-- Joseph Campbell, quoted from Famous Dead Non-theists

[jonesy]

Just for the record I believe Jesus existed and still does exist. I mentioned before I have personally felt divine intervention in my life. (Yes, I know this makes me a quack)

How come the accounts written by contemporaries, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, Josephus and others can't be used as historical evidence? Just because they were bound with other books and called the 'Bible' several hundred years later shouldn't render them irrelevant historical documents.

Is it so much easier to prove with greater certainty other figures from antiquity have existed?

[troutman]

accounts written by contemporaries, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, Josephus

This is one of the main weaknesses in the historical Jesus argument. None of these people wrote contemporaneously. The historical existence of some of these characters is in doubt too.

Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the unknown Gospel authors wrote them during the alleged life of Jesus, nor do these authors make the claim to have met an earthly Jesus. Add to this that none of the original gospel manuscripts exist; we only have copies of copies. [from Cowperson's 1st link]

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by troutman

accounts written by contemporaries, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, Josephus

This is one of the main weaknesses in the historical Jesus argument. None of these people wrote contemporaneously. The historical existence of some of these characters is in doubt too.

You are going to have to explain that. Having a supporting cast of diverse people with similar stories and accounts usually lends credance to a position. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John certainly did write as contemporaries. Paul wrote the bulk of his works in the first century, within 50 years of AD33. This also applies to Peter. Josephus I am not sure of the dates of his material, whether it was all after 33 AD or not.
Roman records record the event of the crucifixtion.

Don't get me wrong, we are all free to choose if we will believe that Jesus was the son of God, but to question the existance on the earth of the man, Jesus seems absurd.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by jonesy

You are going to have to explain that. Having a supporting cast of diverse people with similar stories and accounts usually lends credance to a position. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John certainly did write as contemporaries. Paul wrote the bulk of his works in the first century, within 50 years of AD33. This also applies to Peter. Josephus I am not sure of the dates of his material, whether it was all after 33 AD or not.
Roman records record the event of the crucifixtion.

Don't get me wrong, we are all free to choose if we will believe that Jesus was the son of God, but to question the existance on the earth of the man, Jesus seems absurd.

I posted a link above just for you to read...in it was mentioned the following:

The documents that contain a resurrection story[30] are usually dated like this:
Paul:50-55(I Cor. 15:3-8) Mark:70(Mark 16) Matthew:80(Matthew 28) Luke:85(Luke 24) Gospel of Peter:85-90(Fragment) John:95(John 20-21)

The numbers represent the years AD.

Read the article

The point of the article is...Did Jesus exist from a religious standpoint. What proof do you offer that he did? Are you stating that just because you believe that so it is? It appears thats what the Priest in the article said.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by jonesy

You are going to have to explain that. Having a supporting cast of diverse people with similar stories and accounts usually lends credance to a position. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John certainly did write as contemporaries. Paul wrote the bulk of his works in the first century, within 50 years of AD33. This also applies to Peter. Josephus I am not sure of the dates of his material, whether it was all after 33 AD or not.
Roman records record the event of the crucifixtion.

Don't get me wrong, we are all free to choose if we will believe that Jesus was the son of God, but to question the existance on the earth of the man, Jesus seems absurd.

Easily debunked and explained here under The Bible Gospels

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

but to question the existance on the earth of the man, Jesus seems absurd.

Frankly, given zero evidence to support your position, it seems absurd to believe it.

As I said in my post above, unlike Cheese who's an atheist, I'm merely finding the investigation interesting. I also assumed that Jesus was an actual historic figure but really, why would I these days?

In fact, he's a mythical figure and I find the court challenge to be exceptionally interesting.

You will see this story take off on a global basis once word gets out and the trial starts.

Cowperson

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Are you stating that just because you believe that so it is? It appears thats what the Priest in the article said.

That is called faith.

faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Hebrews 11:1

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Buff

That is called faith.

Hebrews 11:1

well IF the Priest uses that as his proof I can hardly wait for the reaction!

[Winsor_Pilates]

Do they swear him in to court on the bible before they make him prove Jesus exists?

[Skyceman]

Are the ideas of Jesus and Christianity borrowed from Mithra and Zoroastrianism?"
Did Judaism and Christianity borrow the Messiah, the resurrection and final judgment from Zoroastrianism / Mithra? Many doctrines of the Christian faith have parallels in Zoroastrianism, i.e. virgin birth, son of God, resurrection. Some scholars say that Zarathustra (a.k.a. Zoroaster) lived around 600-500 BC. If that were the case, David, Isaiah and Jeremiah (all of whom mention the Messiah, the resurrection and the final judgment in their writings), lived and wrote before Zarathustra. Some scholars say that Zoroaster lived sometime between 1500 and 1200 BC. If that were the case, the case for Christianity borrowing from Zoroastrianism would be stronger, but the fact is we don’t know when Zarathustra lived (hence the disagreement among scholars) and so this argument is speculative at best. The Greek historian Herodotus (5th Century BC) doesn’t mention him in his treatise on the Medo-Persian religions, though Plato, who was born roughly around the time Herodotus died, does mention him in his Alcibiades (see Wikipedia’s entry on Zoroaster; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster).

But establishing when Zarathustra lived is only the first step. Next we have to establish what he actually taught (as opposed to what modern Zoroastrianism claims he taught). The only source for Zarathustra’s teachings is the Avesta, and the oldest copies we have of the Avesta date from the 13th Century AD. The late date for this collection of writings lends no support whatsoever to the idea that Christians borrowed from Zoroastrianism (the oldest copies of the Jewish Scriptures which we have today date centuries before Christ and the oldest complete manuscripts of the Christian Scriptures we have date from the 4th Century AD).

This looks to me to be another case of skeptics citing a pre-Christian religion, assuming that the post-Christian form of the religion (which we know about) has remained faithful to the pre-Christian form of the religion (which we know nothing about), and speculating that the similarities between the religion and Christianity are due to Christianity borrowing from the religion in question. It’s a philosophical argument without solid evidence to back it up. Have we any good reason not to suppose that it was Zoroastrianism which borrowed from Christianity and not vice versa? We know that Zoroastrianism borrowed freely from the polytheistic faiths of the region in which it became popular. Mithra, for example, was a Persian god who found a prominent role in Zoroastrianism. Mithra’s Hindu counterpart is the god Mitra.


http://www.gotquestions.org