Jesus on Trial
Crimes have been committed. They are of "abuse of popular credulity and belief (article 661, Italian criminal code) and the substitution of person" (494, Italian criminal code). Who are the villains who have perpetrated such fraud and deceit? Christians.
More specifically, a lawsuit has been brought against Fr. Enrico Righi, Roman Catholic parish priest in Bagnoregio, Italy, "as representative of ministers of religion, for abuse of popular credulity and impersonation." The plaintiff is Luigi Cascioli, Italian atheist, and Fr. Righi is his childhood friend.
In a nutshell, Cascioli is charging the Catholic Church (i.e., the Christian faith) with misrepresenting the identity of Christ and perpetuating a fraud. His legal challenge is that Fr. Righi prove the existence of Christ. Cascioli explains in his lawsuit:
After long and deep studies consisting of (and not only) textual exegesis of the Old and New Testament and other Sacred Scriptures, the undersigned has come to the conclusion that many of the facts produced and presented as if being true and historical in the so called “Holy Scriptures”, are in reality false, first of all the historicization of the figure of Jesus Christ, for the most part based on the figure of John of Gamala, son of Judas, downright descendant of the Asmoneian stock.
In short, Cascioli claims that Jesus was not really Jesus, but rather a guy named "John", that Joseph and Mary are two totally imaginary characters, that the Bible is composed of fables and that Christianity is a fraud.
This is nothing new. Cascioli is a pawn of atheism which has been a passing torch since the conception of Christianity. No where in his claims of Christian deception is Cascioli able to substantiate his own claims that would disprove the existence of Jesus Christ. Cascioli in particular is a student of Celsus. Celsus was an eclectic polemical writer against Christianity in the 2nd century A.D. Catholic Encyclopedia says of Celsus:
Celsus’s work may be divided as follows: a preface, an attack on Christianity from the point of view of Judaism, an attack on Christianity from the point of view of philosophy, a refutation of Christian teachings in detail, and an appeal to Christians to adopt paganism. Christ, he says, claimed to be of virgin birth; in reality, He was the son of a Jewish village woman, the wife of a carpenter. The flight into Egypt, the absence of any divine intervention in favour of the Mother of Jesus , who was driven forth with her husband, and other arguments are used to show that Christ was not the Messias. During the course of His public ministry Christ could not convince His countrymen that His mission was divine. As followers He had ten or twelve "infamous publicans and fishermen". Such is not the company that befits a god.
First Century historian Flavius Josephus testifies not only to the existence, but to the divinity of Jesus. This is what Josephus, apparently a non-Christian, reportedly had to say about Jesus Christ:
"There was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call Him a man, for He was a doer of wonderful works. He was Christ. Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men among us, condemned Him to the cross. He appeared to His followers alive again the third day."
Josephus names the same Pontius Pilate who is mentioned in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds (recited at Christian services around the world to this day), as well as in the Gospels of the New Testament which ties the historical Pilate and Jesus together.
It’ll be a long trial if the Italian court calls for the 2.1 billion Christians in the world to be called to the witness stand. Cascioli should be counter-sued to prove the existence of Mohammad, Napoleon, King Tut, Queen Cleopatra or Martin Luther. All supposedly existed and left some mark on the world, but their existence is only proven through paintings and portraits, writings and documents. Their posterity, if they can be traced, cannot out number the children of the faith of Christianity, nor can they rival the number of followers of Christ. How can we say that a modern day descendant of Mohammad, for example, is truly a descendant when he may have been called "Abdula"? Or that his birth place or parents were legitimately named? Every historical figure should be suspect if Cascioli’s premise is taken seriously.
Even if Jesus were not real, or never existed, the Christian faith has played an undeniably positive role in history. It is universities, hospices, charity for the poor, disabled and elderly, equality and rights for women and protection for children that have been established because of Christianity. To take Christianity out of the world would be to live in a Stalinistic Soviet Union or a Communist China. The truth is that Cascioli cannot disprove the existence of Jesus, or that Jesus is as historical a figure (as any other pre-technological figure) is not real. The Christian Church traces through painstaking documenting the person of Christ to be more real than all other pre-modern figures. Even our calendar acknowledges His existence, and as irony would have it Cascioli is sworn into court in the 2006 year of Our Lord, A.D.
(*hat tip: PCD & LinkedInUSAF )
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/365987
References (9)
-
Response: BeautyBeauty -
Response: game copy procopy any video with easy to use software -
Response: game copy profinally burn any game or movie with 3 easy clicks -
Response: game copy profinally burn any game or movie with 3 easy clicks -
Response: game copy profinally burn any game or movie with 3 easy clicks -
Response: game copy profinally burn any game or movie with 3 easy clicks -
Response: game copy profinally burn any game or movie with 3 easy clicks -
Response: game copy profinally burn any game or movie with 3 easy clicks -
Response: urlurl





























Reader Comments (46)
In fact athiesm has existed since at least ancient times, far predating xianity.
The existence of Napoleon is much more widely documented than Jesus (just talking about surviving documents, of course he's a great deal more recent), we still have the body of King Tutankamun etc. I'd say that the existence of figures like Plato and Archimedes is even more clear than the later figure of Jesus.
Do I take it that you doubt the existence of Mohammed?
As for the positivity of the Christian faith, well I've talked with you about it before. It's most definitely a mixed bag. I'm sure you have excuses for the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, Witch trials, the treatment of Galileo etc. but you most definitely don't offer anything like that amount of charity to acts committed in the name of other religions such as Islam.
Also, please note that the seed of democracy was sewn in Ancient Greece, again predating Christianity. It was a lot different from Stalinism or Maoism, in some ways purer than modern democracies since any citizen could vote and speak on any issue. Our democracies are restricted to two or three substancial polls per decade (Each with a severely restricted palette of choices). It wasn't perfect, of course, Greek society was reliant on slave labour... but then so was the original American civilisation, fortified as it was by the positive influence of Christianity.
Again, the Greeks beat Christianity to the punch with Universities.
Hospices and charity are also old ideas. Some ancient societies were very equal between the sexes, and since when have children not been protected??
The calendar was imposed by the Roman Emporer when it converted. It has more to do with the Roman's power than God's.
Jesus, on the other hand, is woven into
1) a Roman census
2) the reign of Herod
3) the life of Pilate
Of course, Jesus is a lot older (and I may easily have missed some things), but nevertheless it's orders of magnitude less to go on than with Napoleon. (not to mention, the chronology of the census and Herod's reign is extremely problematic).
Darwinism and Evolution are only theories only accepted by elitists as the sole answer. Intelligent Design is another theory. As theories they should be given equal weight. ID has not been disproven.
I'd love to know whom you consider to be elitist.
Michael Newdow, as far as I have (so very briefly) seen is looking for constitutional consistency. He might be over-keen in your view.
Think about this: a scientist will say that a fossil/bone/thing is 30 million years old. Not only is there no point of reference for the fossil/bone/thing, but over such a period of time think about the element itself. We know that everything except for perhaps a diamond or other such object, which is never used in carbon or other dating, can be broken, eroded or altered. When a fossil/bone/thing is exposed to extreme heat, cold, erosion, water, salt, oxygen, gases, etc. etc., how can you say that the element has NOT changed over MILLIONS of years? How then can you possibly determine the age via any sort of realistic dating? You can't.
If recorded human history only goes back as far as the last 6 or 7 thousand years, on what basis can it be decided that something like carbon dating is reliable? If modern history is when carbon dating and other such "scientific explanations became an option, against what do you measure it's accuracy, since you cannot use history to do so? You have to use theory. You have to rely on faith that any such dating, carbon or otherwise, is accurate, and there are way too many variables to make that reliable.
ID or creation is scientific. In fact, if you follow the Biblical account of creation, it lines up far more convincingly scientifically than evolution. Factor in a great flood, 6000 years of human history, the rate of erosion (the world would be the size of a marble if it eroded at the rate it does now if it were billions or millions of years old) and you can easily conclude that a higher being orchestrated the origin of the universe.
Not only that, but ID is totally legit as a "theory" because it goes to the question of the origin of the universe.
Catholic newspaper L'Osservatore Romano agrees with me.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060119/sc_nm/religion_catholic_evolution_dc
Anything printed in the newspaper is vetted carefully by the Vatican.
We've talked about dating before, Amy. Dating is verified by using multiple isotope pairs, by correspondence with dendrochronology (tree ring data), ice cores etc. There is no reason for all of these things to agree, the fact that they do is strong verification. The body of data is *enormous*.
Isn't that a property all scholarship in general? Specifically, science is to do with rejecting theories which do not explain phenomena or experiments. When a theory is unfalsifyable, as we agree ID is, science is a useless, inappropriate tool.
I don't believe in evolution AT ALL, but there is strong data to indicate this world is older than 6,000 years. It doesn't affect my faith (God created the world in seven days, period, end of story), it's just difficult to reconcile, for instance, the growth of coral reefs (and the abundant supply it is in today) with a supposed 6,000 year old Earth.
That being said, we don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden (during which they were immortal). We don't know completely what effect the introduction of sin had on this planet. We don't know a lot of things. The Bible remains the best source of our history... but the fact is that the story of creation presented inside it makes no claim of being complete in terms of the Earth's history.
I don't mean this as a flame against you AmyP, but why is it so hard for people to just say "I don't know?"
And just so there's no misunderstanding here, God created man; we did not evolve.
Christians are lost, short sighted, bigoted, intolerant, and evil. Christianity has brought death, destruction, confusion, and clouds reality with stories of miracles and unverifiable acts.
Athiests are pure, learned, rich in diversity, open minded, and caring. Athiests and their close bretheren bring peace, love, unity, clarity, and breaks the bonds of limited reason.
Alas, my world has been shattered.
Wait ... I have faith. No matter how often it is brought forth that Christianity is what it is not, I rest peacefully knowing I have a place and a future. That knowledge shall not be wrested from me, no matter the challenge.
Hmm, I seem to feel the same way about my country. I wonder if, somehow, there is a connection ... ???
Naw, those dolts so many years ago didn't put "In God We Trust" on money for a reason ... ya think? Why do we swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God?
Shoot, I forgot, I can't posit these things! I haven't the facilities to put forth an argument. I live in a "dream world" ...
Anyone seen Art Bell lately? I seem to have misplaced my tinfoil chapeau ... rats, conflicting signals again ... where are those meds, anyway?
Did anyone look this up on Wikipedia? Just checking?
Jesus was already tried once and surged victorious. Some people just don't understand what Chritianity's all about. It's not about rites, it's not about history, it's not about archaeology. It's about Justice, it's about Peace, it's about Love, it's about Mercy even for atheists (just look at what other religions offer).
So all the guessing and blather about carbon dating, paleolithic man, ice ages, etc.. is much easier to dismiss as fiction because there is NO EVIDENCE for it other than scientists conjecturing about this rock formation or that species (supposed) mutation. THERE IS NO PROOF. At least the Christians and the Jews have records, prophecies, personal eyewitness, geneaologies, etc...
1) No civilisation prior to around 3500 BCE. So what? Who claims there is?
2) No faith required in science, since absolute belief is not required or encouraged. You are projecting your religious attitude towards belief onto science, which is an error.
3) There are many geological problems with a worldwide flood, there does not appear to have been one. The Genesis flood account has been connected with a known local flood in the region of present-day Iraq.
4) Some accuracy in the bible does not guarantee the accuracy in the rest of it. Eg. some historical accuracy about the history of the Jews should not be taken to verify other more extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
5) "NO EVIDENCE" -- except for the rock formation and fossil artifacts in question! Science says, if you want to learn about the world try looking at it. Written accounts are lower in the evidencial food-chain to physical evidence since people can lie and may be mistaken. If the bible says something that the rock doesn't, I'm gonna have to side with the rock. Either the Bible's wrong, or God is playing with my head and hiding from me, in which case screw him.
Does anyone realize that the only way something can be considered a real theory for science is that it can be _falsifiable_? Let's just take the definition of falsify from Merriam-Webster online:
Etymology: Middle English falsifien, from Middle French falsifier, from Medieval Latin falsificare, from Latin falsus transitive senses
1 : to prove or declare false
2 : to make false : as a: to make false by mutilation or addition <the accounts were falsified to conceal a theft> b: to represent falsely : MISREPRESENT
3 : to prove unsound by experience intransitive senses : to tell lies : LIE
So, what do we do if something is _verifiable_? Thereby saying that one can prove sound by experience?
I did it again. Being Christian and a Zionist, I cannot posit anything of substance. My comments are influenced by my faith and support for the Israelis. Rats.
(actually, i'm glad my opinions are influenced. as Amy has said above:
"If in the end I were wrong, at least I know I have made God happy by believing in Holy Scripture and Christian teaching. I have no desire to diss Christianity or Judiasm's holy books by not believing it."
that's the ticket, Amy and Johnny!)
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
"Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000
"There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue."
and, of course you can look it up in the wiki, and google for more information. Believe me, I'm not saying anything in the least bit controversial.
Jez: You said: "1) No civilisation prior to around 3500 BCE. So what? Who claims there is?"
Are you serious? Your whole world view of a billions year old planet and a millions year old race is totally dependant on the premise of an evolving natural order. Are you saying that the cro magnon/neanderthal/piltdown man (snicker snicker) were dragging their knuckles until 4000 BC and suddenly they stood up and recited poetry? Built cities? Fabricated metallic fixtures? That is ridiculous. And it is completely UNprovable that any civilization existed prior to Mesopotamia, the location of the Biblical garden of Eden (gasp!).
As far as members of the Church courting openness to the (unorthodox) syncretism between evolution and Christianity, our own prophets fortold this is many places in the New Testament. Here's a key passage:
"The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." II Thessalonians 2:9-12
The lie St. Paul refers to is here:
"Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."
Romans 1:23-25
The last days apostasy will include many Churchmen and church leaders.
I think that Jez would have us believe that Jesus was some sort of half evolved monkey man. That's ridiculous! Which is more believable-the Word of God (The Holy Bible) or the word of 'scientists'? I know I put my trust in the Word of God.
Amy, I was listening to Paul Harvey this morning and he said that thanks to the Kyoto protocols and Islamist groups like Hammas that automobiles will cease to exist and will be replace by goat-drawn carts and that the last commercial jet flight will take place in 2052. So the secular atheist liberals team up with the terrorist Islamists to outlaw western civilization. The libs want to save us from 'Global Warming' and the Islamists are just woman hating terrorists.
Artifacts from a civilisation have either lasted or they have not. There's a lot of ways man needed to advance to get from the point of dragging knuckles to leaving bits of pottery around. Given that this development took place before writing, progress was slow. Wattle-and-daub huts don't last like stone buildings do. But some artifacts survived nevertheless, such as 700,000-year-old man-made flint tools discovered in Suffolk, England.
Records of poetry are unavailable before writing, naturally. However, early evidence of musical instruments such as flutes date back 18,000 years, and drums even further.
Do you really think that man's first attempts at cities were so good that they survive to this day? I don't think so. I recommend you stop snickering and think about what evidence you should expect to see in the old earth model...
No Erica, men 2000 years ago were indistinguishable phenotypically from us.
Jez, in a nutshell, yes, that cardinal is an idiot. No, not really, but his pronounciation about ID not being scientific is.
The article in question is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/science/sciencespecial2/19evolution.html?_r=1
As a Catholic I can tell you that the Vatican newspaper does not mean it's doctrine endorsed by the Church. Darwinism is totally contrary to Catholicism and Christianity. The Catholic Catechism, which IS explicit in doctrine, says this about creation:
Creation:
I. CATECHESIS ON CREATION
282 Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that men of all times have asked themselves:120 "Where do we come from?" "Where are we going?" "What is our origin?" "What is our end?" "Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?" the two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/EN.G0015/__P19.HTM
Full Text
Popes until recently (excluding Pope Benedict who supports Intelligent Design) have always slammed and denounced Darwinism. Pope Leo, Pope Pius XII, etc. Pope John Paul II believed in Creation and evolution (which is not in keeping with strict Church opinion) by saying God created and let it all evolve from there. This is extremely problematic and I won't take the time to argue it here, but he spoke it ONLY as his opinion. The Popes who denounced evolution and Darwinism did so in encyclicals, which are equal to Catholic doctrine and official teaching.
So.... the article from the Vatican is full of crap. I'm a Catholic, I can say that with some insight. What the modern Church is trying to do is appear scientifically relevant in the world as a way of rebounding from the "Galileo" incident. I would suggest to the Church that what planet revolves around what and where isn't as morally deep as were we as human kind created or evolved from odd life forms. The Catholic Catechism is also very clear on the inerrancy of Holy Scripture, which of course totally supports creationism, i.e., Intelligent Design. Pope John Paul II spoke from his opinion, not official teaching when he spoke of evolution. He is wrong, which I'm sure he now knows. So is the author of the article (I think it's a cardinal) of the Vatican story.
Main Entry: 1 faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
As a Catholic I have faith, faith in God as my creator, in my religion, and that there is still good in the human race (excluding the ACLU folks). By the mere definition the teachings of the Bible can not be proven, but accepted through faith.
Cascioli is nothing but a bitter old man who has turned his back on God. If this lawsuit succeeds, I guess the next litigation will be against people impersonating Santa Claus, the Eater Bunny & the Tooth Fairy!
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm
I do recommend that your readers check it out. Some extracts I enjoyed:
'283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me." '
I like this because it does not dismiss the persuit or validity of science, as you are often in danger of doing.