http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02 ... index.html
ROME, Italy (AP) -- An Italian judge has dismissed an atheist's petition that a small-town priest should stand trial for asserting that Jesus Christ existed, both sides said on Friday.
Luigi Cascioli, a 72-year-old retired agronomist, had accused the Rev. Enrico Righi of violating two laws with the assertion, which he called a deceptive fable propagated by the Roman Catholic Church.
"The Rev. Righi is very satisfied and moved," Righi's attorney, Severo Bruno, said. "He is an old, small-town parish priest who never would have thought he'd be in the spotlight for something like this."
Cascioli, a former schoolmate of Righi's, said he had not expected the case to succeed in overwhelmingly Roman Catholic Italy.
"This is not surprising but it doesn't mean it all ends here," he said, adding that he's considering taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
"This is an important case and it deserves to go ahead," he said.
Judge Gaetano Mautone said in his decision that prosecutors should investigate Cascioli for possible slander.
The ruling was released Thursday in Viterbo, a town north of Rome where the priest is based. Cascioli filed a criminal complaint against Righi in 2002 after Righi wrote in a parish bulletin that Jesus existed, that he was born to a couple named Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem and that he lived in Nazareth.
Righi, 76, said substantial historical evidence proves Jesus' existence.
Cascioli claimed that Righi's assertions violated two Italian laws: one barring "abuse of popular belief," or fraudulently deceiving people; and another barring "impersonation" or personal gain from attributing a false name to someone.
Crazy Atheists
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
-
TopperHarley
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1870
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:56 pm
Crazy Atheists
"Never travel faster than your guardian angel can fly." - Mother Theresa
-
Hotel Tango
- Rank 4
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 11:49 pm
Many scholars believe that Jesus did not exist as a man. What we see reported in biblical writings is actually a metaphor or simply hearsay. Courts of law do not allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus, no Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. All documents about Jesus were written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.
The most "authoritative" accounts of a historical Jesus come from the Gospels of the Bible. These Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but from the influence of early church fathers. Who on historical record openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the Church. Eusebius, an early church bishop with great influence wrote, "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." In one of his books he includes a chapter titled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived", there occurred plenty of opportunity and motive to change, modify, or create texts that might bolster the position of the Church or the members of the Church themselves.
IF JESUS, THEN WHY NOT HERCULES?
If a person accepts hearsay and accounts from believers as historical evidence for Jesus, then shouldn't they act consistently to other accounts based solely on hearsay and belief?
Hercules was born as a human from the union of God (Zeus) and the mortal and chaste Alcmene. Similar to Herod who wanted to kill Jesus, Hera wanted to kill Hercules. Like Jesus, Hercules traveled the earth as a mortal helping mankind and performed miraculous deeds. Like Jesus who died and rose to heaven, Hercules died, rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. Hercules gives example of perhaps the most popular hero in Ancient Greece and Rome. They believed that he actually lived, told stories about him, worshiped him, and dedicated temples to him.
Likewise the "evidence" of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have historical people like Hesiod and Plato who mentions Hercules. Similar to the way the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the epic stories of Homer who depict the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have mention of Jesus in Joesphus' Antiquities, so also does Joesphus mention Hercules in Antiquities. Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also mention Hercules. And most importantly, just as we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in a historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have stories and beliefs about him? Of course not, and the same must apply to Jesus if we wish to hold any consistency to historicity.
People consider Hercules and other Greek gods as myth because people no longer believe in the Greek and Roman stories. When a civilization dies, so go their gods. Christianity and its church authorities, on the other hand, still hold a powerful influence on governments, institutions, and colleges. Anyone doing research on Jesus, even skeptics, had better allude to his existence or else risk future funding and damage to their reputations or fear embarrassment against their Christian friends. Christianity depends on establishing a historical Jesus and it will defend, at all costs, even the most unreliable sources. The faithful want to believe in Jesus, and belief alone can create intellectual barriers that leak even into atheist and secular thought. We have so many Christian professors, theologians and historical "experts" around the world that tell us we should accept a historical Jesus that if repeated often enough, it tends to convince even the most ardent skeptic. The establishment of history should never reside with the "experts" words alone or simply because a scholar has a reputation as a historian. If a scholar makes a historical claim, his assertion should depend primarily with the evidence itself and not just because he or she says so. Facts do not require belief. And whereas beliefs can live comfortably without evidence at all, facts depend on evidence.
Even today, we see many examples of seedling historicized mythologies: UFO adherents who's beliefs began as a dream of alien bodily invasion, and then expressed as actually having occurred (some of which have formed religious cults); beliefs of urban legends which started as pure fiction or hoaxes; propaganda spread by politicians which stem from fiction but believed by their constituents.
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus, no Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. All documents about Jesus were written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.
The most "authoritative" accounts of a historical Jesus come from the Gospels of the Bible. These Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but from the influence of early church fathers. Who on historical record openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the Church. Eusebius, an early church bishop with great influence wrote, "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." In one of his books he includes a chapter titled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived", there occurred plenty of opportunity and motive to change, modify, or create texts that might bolster the position of the Church or the members of the Church themselves.
IF JESUS, THEN WHY NOT HERCULES?
If a person accepts hearsay and accounts from believers as historical evidence for Jesus, then shouldn't they act consistently to other accounts based solely on hearsay and belief?
Hercules was born as a human from the union of God (Zeus) and the mortal and chaste Alcmene. Similar to Herod who wanted to kill Jesus, Hera wanted to kill Hercules. Like Jesus, Hercules traveled the earth as a mortal helping mankind and performed miraculous deeds. Like Jesus who died and rose to heaven, Hercules died, rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. Hercules gives example of perhaps the most popular hero in Ancient Greece and Rome. They believed that he actually lived, told stories about him, worshiped him, and dedicated temples to him.
Likewise the "evidence" of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have historical people like Hesiod and Plato who mentions Hercules. Similar to the way the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the epic stories of Homer who depict the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have mention of Jesus in Joesphus' Antiquities, so also does Joesphus mention Hercules in Antiquities. Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also mention Hercules. And most importantly, just as we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in a historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have stories and beliefs about him? Of course not, and the same must apply to Jesus if we wish to hold any consistency to historicity.
People consider Hercules and other Greek gods as myth because people no longer believe in the Greek and Roman stories. When a civilization dies, so go their gods. Christianity and its church authorities, on the other hand, still hold a powerful influence on governments, institutions, and colleges. Anyone doing research on Jesus, even skeptics, had better allude to his existence or else risk future funding and damage to their reputations or fear embarrassment against their Christian friends. Christianity depends on establishing a historical Jesus and it will defend, at all costs, even the most unreliable sources. The faithful want to believe in Jesus, and belief alone can create intellectual barriers that leak even into atheist and secular thought. We have so many Christian professors, theologians and historical "experts" around the world that tell us we should accept a historical Jesus that if repeated often enough, it tends to convince even the most ardent skeptic. The establishment of history should never reside with the "experts" words alone or simply because a scholar has a reputation as a historian. If a scholar makes a historical claim, his assertion should depend primarily with the evidence itself and not just because he or she says so. Facts do not require belief. And whereas beliefs can live comfortably without evidence at all, facts depend on evidence.
Even today, we see many examples of seedling historicized mythologies: UFO adherents who's beliefs began as a dream of alien bodily invasion, and then expressed as actually having occurred (some of which have formed religious cults); beliefs of urban legends which started as pure fiction or hoaxes; propaganda spread by politicians which stem from fiction but believed by their constituents.
Pretty much all major historical scholars agree that Jesus did in fact exist. There does appear to be very little disagreement on this fact.
Where people do disagree is on whether or not He was whom He says He was (the son of God).
Where people do disagree is on whether or not He was whom He says He was (the son of God).
"You may not believe in God, but He believes in you."
BULLSHIT. Maybe you mean all major Church Historians? In which case it's a conflict of interest. Show me some evidence of who these major historical scholars are who you speak of.priest wrote:Pretty much all major historical scholars agree that Jesus did in fact exist. There does appear to be very little disagreement on this fact.
Where people do disagree is on whether or not He was whom He says He was (the son of God).
You must have paid attention in sunday school... I love your references to "all" & "fact" - those are pretty blanket statements to use when there is no evidence except 2000 years of violence and lies.
Fucking idiots(generalisation of anyone who thinks the contrary)...
"jesus" exsisted...
So did "moses" "noah" and "john smith"
fucking idiots(see above)....
What you don't think people had names 2 centuries ago?????
"jesus" exsisted...
So did "moses" "noah" and "john smith"
fucking idiots(see above)....
What you don't think people had names 2 centuries ago?????
Last edited by cyyz on Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
altiplano,
I could post some links that do claim to support the existence of Jesus, but they are pro-christian websites (ex. http://www.godandscience.org, http://www.carm.org, http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusindex.htm, etc). You could easily do a google search and find many other such claims that Jesus did exist. Yes, I realize these are "pro-christian" sources, so you will likely end up discarding their validity quickly. There's also writings from old philosophers, like Josephus (here's one link: http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm).
I will try better to find some non-Christian sources for you, however.
And I don't think that Christians have plagued the world with 2000 years of violence. Yes, I agree there were many mistakes (inquisition, crusades, etc), but there has alsobeen much good because of Christianity.
And I never went to Sunday school
I could post some links that do claim to support the existence of Jesus, but they are pro-christian websites (ex. http://www.godandscience.org, http://www.carm.org, http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusindex.htm, etc). You could easily do a google search and find many other such claims that Jesus did exist. Yes, I realize these are "pro-christian" sources, so you will likely end up discarding their validity quickly. There's also writings from old philosophers, like Josephus (here's one link: http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm).
I will try better to find some non-Christian sources for you, however.
And I don't think that Christians have plagued the world with 2000 years of violence. Yes, I agree there were many mistakes (inquisition, crusades, etc), but there has alsobeen much good because of Christianity.
And I never went to Sunday school
"You may not believe in God, but He believes in you."
priest wrote:I will try better to find some non-Christian sources for you, however
The koran makes mention of Jesus....
and the beatles make mention of jesus....
But I guess the "Beatles" never existed either....
Last edited by cyyz on Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
. ._
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7374
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:50 pm
- Location: Cowering in my little room because the Water Cooler is locked.
- Contact:
I'd say there's enough evidence in my mind that Jesus existed. And I'm a bona fide atheist. As far as the turning water into wine, and walking on water, I'm calling bullshit.
But I think he was a guy that pissed off a lot of people because he had a good following that was counter to the politics of the day. And hey, if he COULD turn water into wine, I'd party with the guy any day of the week, not just Sunday!
-istp
But I think he was a guy that pissed off a lot of people because he had a good following that was counter to the politics of the day. And hey, if he COULD turn water into wine, I'd party with the guy any day of the week, not just Sunday!
-istp
Here's a link I found which does have some non-Christian sources sited: http://www.answers.com/topic/historicity-of-jesus. At the bottom of the page it has a whole sleuth of other links, which should keep you busy for days.
"You may not believe in God, but He believes in you."
-
costermonger
- Rank 8
- Posts: 881
- Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:52 pm
Yeah, it's supposed to have been during his childhood - the 'unrecorded' years where traditional thought says he was probably studying under the Rabbis in Jerusalem.costermonger wrote:A while ago I saw a show on TV (Discovery I think) about how there's now a growing school of thought that Jesus travelled to India/Tibet before he died. Quite interesting, actually. Apparently there's a figure in Buddhist lore that bares an uncanny resemblence to Jesus.
priest wrote:There's also writings from old philosophers, like Josephus
So why not Hercules if you cite Joesphus as as one of your sources?altiplano wrote: ...mention of Jesus in Joesphus' Antiquities, so also does Joesphus mention Hercules in Antiquities...
Some statistics of large death tolls are given by historians such as Will Durant, of up to 135,000 people tried, tortured and killed, and that's just the Spanish Inquisition... That's some mistake.. but hey, we got some great art during the period!priest wrote: Yes, I agree there were many mistakes (inquisition, crusades, etc)
I am not very familiar with Josephus' work, so I can't really comment on it too much. Jesus' story has obviously influenced many lives, and Christianity is a religion that has become accepted all over the world. I don't think there are many people out there who still worship Hercules, nor any other Greek mythology God. If Jesus' life and story was in fact fabricated, it would not likely have spread so quickly. Moreover, I think Christianity would have less of a following than it does if it could be easily debunked.
"You may not believe in God, but He believes in you."
-
niss
- Top Poster
- Posts: 6745
- Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:54 pm
- Location: I'm a CPL trapped in a PPL's Body.
- Contact:
I hate people that are dead set in their ways. I had an argument with a Christian girl who was quite religious who accused me of not being a real Jew because I believed in evoloution. Well aside from that pissing me off to no end I asked her "The only possible way to disprove evolution is by completely proving creation. The only way to 100% prove creation is to produce God, can you produce God?" I hate it when people refernce the bible as fact. PLEASE EVERYONE I BEG OF YOU!!!! DO NOT CONFUSE BELIEFS WITH 100% TRUTHS!! IF IT IS 100% TRUE TO YOU I ADMIRE YOUR FAITH, BUT IF IT CAN NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED WITH HARD PROOF THEN DO NOT USE IT IN AN ARGUMENT!!!!! If you smite thy neighbour due to the reasons outlined in the letter to Dr. Laura, and you use the bible in court as evidence, unless there is DNA, or fingerprints, or some shit like that you are FUCKED!
altiplano wrote:
So why not Hercules if you cite Joesphus as as one of your sources?
http://findaperson.canada411.ca/10649/s ... &x=44&y=21
"Smart, Hercules"
That being "Mr. Hercules Smart" but anyways... maybe if you did some research....
http://findaperson.canada411.ca/10649/s ... d=&x=0&y=0
2 for "Jesus"
You're arguing that no one existed by the name of "jesus" or Hercules...
We have scientific proof that said people were alive and are still alive...
It's a bloody name.
The italian sued the priest for stating that "jesus" existed... But we all know "jesus" did exist, so the claim should have been tossed, the Italian is as bad a Zundel who claimed the Holocaust never existed...
We have scientific proof that said people were alive and are still alive...
It's a bloody name.
The italian sued the priest for stating that "jesus" existed... But we all know "jesus" did exist, so the claim should have been tossed, the Italian is as bad a Zundel who claimed the Holocaust never existed...
