Italian priest ordered to prove Jesus existed

[jonesy]

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.


Cowperson

0 evidence? As I see it, there are many first hand accounts written, including Roman records of census and proceedings in court. There are records from contemporaries both Jewish and Gentile.
I am surprised at your words, some ~12 months ago, Frank the Tank said he believed none of the stories about a historical Jesus, you were on the side suggesting there are enough historical proofs to indicate otherwise.

How can you prove Plato existed? or Solomon? or any other sinificant historical person?

[Superfraggle]

The argument runs like this.

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."

"Aha!" says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own argument, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that," says God, and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

(from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

[icarus]

Originally Posted by jonesy

How can you prove Plato existed? or Solomon? or any other sinificant historical person?

Indeed, there is a lot more evidence supporting Jesus Christ existed than did Socrates. But unlike Jesus, no one questions the philosophy attributed to Socrates let alone whether he existed at all. It is interesting to ponder the reasons this is so.

Jesus is mentioned many times in the Koran, which I don't think contains a first-hand account, the point being that Christians might not be the only ones ****ed off if the question of mere existence once again becomes a big issue.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Skyceman

http://www.gotquestions.org

Also from that site...

The Bible does not specifically say how long it took Noah to build the ark. When Noah is first mentioned in Genesis 5:32, he was 500 years old. When Noah entered the ark, he was 600 years old.


And so on. It's a "literal interpretation" site. If they actually believe that this Noah story happened in reality, that this 600 year old man built a big boat and put all those animals and dinosaurs on it and looked after them for a year, then nothing they say can be taken seriously.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by jonesy

but to question the existance on the earth of the man, Jesus, seems absurd.
How can you prove Plato existed? or Solomon? or any other sinificant historical person?

Couldnt the explanation be made this way?

Me - I have a pet Cat.(Plato)

(Now most people would have no reason to doubt that at all...in fact it is highly likely that I have a cat)

or this...

Me - I have a pet Cat that can walk on water and perform miracles. Pet my Cat and you can be healed!(Jesus)

(Some people might buy this...I would think that most would make a little circle motion with their left index finger around their ear...in reference to me.)

See the correlation?...yes its a stretch!

[troutman]

0 evidence? As I see it, there are many first hand accounts written, including Roman records of census and proceedings in court. There are records from contemporaries both Jewish and Gentile.

Can you provide a footnote or a link for any of this? Where are you getting this information? I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but this is all untrue as I understand it.

[RatherDashing]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Couldnt the explanation be made this way?

Me - I have a pet Cat.(Plato)

(Now most people would have no reason to doubt that at all...in fact it is highly likely that I have a cat)

or this...

Me - I have a pet Cat that can walk on water and perform miracles. Pet my Cat and you can be healed!(Jesus)

(Some people might buy this...I would think that most would make a little circle motion with their left index finger around their ear...in reference to me.)

See the correlation?...yes its a stretch!

Telling crazy stories about your cat doesn't prove the cat doesn't exist.

[Zarathustra]

This should be interesting!

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by jonesy

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



0 evidence? As I see it, there are many first hand accounts written, including Roman records of census and proceedings in court. There are records from contemporaries both Jewish and Gentile.
I am surprised at your words, some ~12 months ago, Frank the Tank said he believed none of the stories about a historical Jesus, you were on the side suggesting there are enough historical proofs to indicate otherwise.

There are no first hand accounts from the period that Jesus is purported to have lived. There are no contemporary Roman records of such.

As far as I know, I have never argued on this board in support of a position saying Jesus existed. Make it a project to find it because I'd certainly be interested. I'm usually pretty consistent about these things.

How can you prove Plato existed? or Solomon? or any other sinificant historical person?

Attempting to cloud the issue? If you want to start a thread and a court case on whether Plato, Socrates or Soloman existed, then please do so. We'll debate them one by one and no doubt we'd agree on some and maybe not on others. That, of course, has nothing to do with what we're talking about in this thread.

Cowperson

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

There are no first hand accounts from the period that Jesus is purported to have lived. There are no contemporary Roman records of such.

As far as I know, I have never argued on this board in support of a position saying Jesus existed. Make it a project to find it because I'd certainly be interested. I'm usually pretty consistent about these things.

How can you prove Plato existed? or Solomon? or any other sinificant historical person?

Attempting to cloud the issue? If you want to start a thread and a court case on whether Plato, Socrates or Soloman existed, then please do so. We'll debate them one by one and no doubt we'd agree on some and maybe not on others. That, of course, has nothing to do with what we're talking about in this thread.

Cowperson

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John provide first hand accounts of the time Jesus was purported to have existed as you put it. They spent 3 years with Jesus. I guess you can say they all lied and made up their writings from thin air, but if that is the case you can say that about any ancient historical writings.
There are Roman records, I will try and find some sources for you. (and the guy above you) There are Jewish records as well, which I will find for you.

I will need help finding items on the old board, to find your statements regarding this issue. It stood out to me, I am pretty sure it was your comments that surprise me.

Clouding th issue with Plato
Not true. I just wonder what constitutes proof. No of us have seen or heard Plato, or the wind or the forces that hold together the nucleus of an atom, but we all assume they exist because of what people wrote and the effects they produce.
I wonder what would constitute 'proof' of Jesus' existence other than his effects 2040 years later or else what people wrote about him. I may be fighting a battle that can't be won based on your definition of proof.

[Cowperson]

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John provide first hand accounts of the time Jesus was purported to have existed as you put it. They spent 3 years with Jesus.

The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E. [Pagels, 1995; Helms]. This would make it some 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have any Gospel writings that mention him! Elaine Pagels writes that "the first Christian gospel was probably written during the last year of the war, or the year it ended. Where it was written and by whom we do not know; the work is anonymous, although tradition attributes it to Mark..." [Pagels, 1995]
The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories.

This is the third time in this thread I've posted this link for your benefit.

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

There are Roman records, I will try and find some sources for you. (and the guy above you) There are Jewish records as well, which I will find for you.

Be my guest.

I wonder what would constitute 'proof' of Jesus' existence

Effects of mythology are hardly relevant to a court case.

A priest in Italy is going to have to come up with proof of the existence of Jesus and it's simply a fact there is nothing that will stand up under the scrutiny of a court of law.

I'm not mocking your faith - I want to be clear on that - but that's what you require here . . . . faith. Because there's no proof that Jesus existed that stands under scrutiny and that's what is going to make this court case explosive on a global scale.

I have National Geographics from the 1960's which get into detail about the meanderings of Jesus. We saw through the last few months on American television some really extraordinary things that really shot my eyebrows higher, programs on network tv in prime time following the trail of Jesus, a simple acceptance on faith, rather than evidence, that these events happened.

Yet . . . . they probably didn't. If they had, I'd be on your side. Unlike Cheese, I don't want it to be so . . . . I wouldn't care one way or the other.

Cowperson

[troutman]

I have National Geographics from the 1960's which get into detail about the meanderings of Jesus. We saw through the last few months on American television some really extraordinary things that really shot my eyebrows higher, programs on network tv in prime time following the trail of Jesus, a simple acceptance on faith, rather than evidence, that these events happened.

That is an interesting point. The last issue of Archaeology had a cover story on "Where Was Jesus Born?". Strange that a scientific magazine runs an article like that, with no suggestion at all that a historical Jesus is at least a controversial topic.

http://www.archaeology.org/0511/abstracts/jesus.html

[mykalberta]

As stated above, Romans detailted his citizenship and death - He is also referred to in Pontius Pilate's journals.

Yeshua of Nazareth is located twice, once in the Judea citizenship roles, and one in the crusifiction roles.

Its strange that a judge would order this, could I also go to Italy and challenge Napoleon and King Arthur's existence?

MYK

[Skyceman]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Also from that site...

The Bible does not specifically say how long it took Noah to build the ark. When Noah is first mentioned in Genesis 5:32, he was 500 years old. When Noah entered the ark, he was 600 years old.


And so on. It's a "literal interpretation" site. If they actually believe that this Noah story happened in reality, that this 600 year old man built a big boat and put all those animals and dinosaurs on it and looked after them for a year, then nothing they say can be taken seriously.

What does that have to do with the facts quoted explaining dates of who wrote what when?

[troutman]

As stated above, Romans detailted his citizenship and death - He is also referred to in Pontius Pilate's journals.

Yeshua of Nazareth is located twice, once in the Judea citizenship roles, and one in the crusifiction roles.

Where? Show us these details please.

Its strange that a judge would order this, could I also go to Italy and challenge Napoleon and King Arthur's existence?

Irrelevant to this discussion. There is no serious question that Napoleon lived, but King Arthur is another question:

http://www.britannia.com/history/h12.html

His name is synonymous with wisdom and fairness. The names of his wife, magician and knights are household words. His sword symbolizes righteous power. His capitol city is an icon for earthly perfection, but with all this name recognition, we still aren't sure that he ever actually lived.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Skyceman

What does that have to do with the facts quoted explaining dates of who wrote what when?

Not much. I'm just saying that any "facts" presented by that bunch are quite possibly wrong because they believe fiction (the ark story) is fact. Who knows what other "facts" are not facts in there?

Just for fun though I'll say what you quoted is correct. So now we know that Judaism and Christianity didn't borrow the messiah from Mithra and Zoroastrianism. So what?

[jonesy]

OK, I am about to take a big cop-out. I await your jeers and heckles.

I cannot prove to you that Jesus existed and I most certainly cannot prove he was the Son of God.

Yes, Cowperson, I have read the link you provided. No need to riposte (haha)

I have met Jesus in my life, he is as real to me as you are (then again, I have never seen you, so you may not really exist) There is a first hand account that your link says doesn't exist.

His presence is felt with your spirit (heart) not your mind
I realize this is wholly unsatisfactory to you, but it is all I have.

I don't know, maybe if you seriously ask him to prove to you that he is real, he just might.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by jonesy

OK, I am about to take a big cop-out. I await your jeers and heckles.

I cannot prove to you that Jesus existed and I most certainly cannot prove he was the Son of God.

Yes, Cowperson, I have read the link you provided. No need to riposte (haha)

I have met Jesus in my life, he is as real to me as you are (then again, I have never seen you, so you may not really exist) There is a first hand account that your link says doesn't exist.

His presence is felt with your spirit (heart) not your mind
I realize this is wholly unsatisfactory to you, but it is all I have.

I don't know, maybe if you seriously ask him to prove to you that he is real, he just might.

Hey jonesy...good on ya! You are the only person so far to come outright and tell it like you see it without a ton of BS to back you up..
Many years ago I did ask...maybe I didnt ask the right question though
Taking a side is ok....sitting on the fence feeds the fire.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by jonesy

OK, I am about to take a big cop-out. I await your jeers and heckles.

I cannot prove to you that Jesus existed and I most certainly cannot prove he was the Son of God.

Yes, Cowperson, I have read the link you provided. No need to riposte (haha)

I have met Jesus in my life, he is as real to me as you are (then again, I have never seen you, so you may not really exist) There is a first hand account that your link says doesn't exist.

His presence is felt with your spirit (heart) not your mind
I realize this is wholly unsatisfactory to you, but it is all I have.

I don't know, maybe if you seriously ask him to prove to you that he is real, he just might.

I don't think that's a cop out at all. Faith is absolutely required; so good on ya.

I personally believe that if there was final proof one way or another that God exists, then there would be no point in free will: the choice would be an obvious one so why let us have to decide in the first place? I think this argument was heading down that path.

As for the judge in this case, what a tool. It's kinda like a judge requiring the Crown to prove the Theory of Gravity in a case where the accused allegedly dropped a piano on the victim (considering scientific theories are naturally unprovable).

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by icarus

As for the judge in this case, what a tool. It's kinda like a judge requiring the Crown to prove the Theory of Gravity in a case where the accused allegedly dropped a piano on the victim (considering scientific theories are naturally unprovable).

I don't know about that.

We don't know all the details but the impression I get is that these two guys live in the same town and the priest is badmouthing the atheist in a newsletter he is sending around to the locals. Isn't that slander?

It's not slander if the priest can back up his claims so they've said "back up your claims". My Italian journalism rules are a little rusty, but over here I think a defense against a slander charge is being able to prove what you said.

Of course we don't know what he said so I'm really just rambling now.

The whole thing does smell like a bit of a stunt on the judge's part. The priest will probably end up writing an apology in the offending newsletter and that'll be about it.