Italian court to decide whether Jesus lived: "Forget the U.S. debate over intelligent design versus evolution. An Italian court is tackling Jesus — and whether the Roman Catholic Church may be breaking the law by teaching that he existed 2,000 years ago. The defendant, Enrico Righi, went on to become a priest writing for the parish newspaper. The plaintiff, Luigi Cascioli, became a vocal atheist who, after years of legal wrangling, is set to get his day in court later this month. “I started this lawsuit because I wanted to deal the final blow against the Church, the bearer of obscurantism and regression,” Cascioli told Reuters. Cascioli says Righi, and by extension the whole Church, broke two Italian laws. The first is “Abuso di Credulita Popolare” (Abuse of Popular Belief) meant to protect people against being swindled or conned. The second crime, he says, is “Sostituzione di Persona”, or impersonation. “The Church constructed Christ upon the personality of John of Gamala,” Cascioli claimed, referring to a 1st century Jew who fought against the Roman army. “In my book, ‘The Fable of Christ,’ I present proof Jesus did not exist as a historic figure. He must now refute this by showing proof of Christ’s existence,” Cascioli said. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10712047/
Nice attempt - will be interesting to see how that turns out since I don't believe there is any evidence he ever lived.
Yeah, I think so. I mean even if someone doesn't believe that he is the savior he still could've existed. I mean no one can be 100% sure though.
Hopefully they find that he isn't...thus causing a mass excommunication of all Italy...ending with the Italian Army invading and reconquering Vatican City. That'd be cool, wouldn't it?
The fable of Jesus was probably based on one or more real people that were nothing like the Jesus depicted in the Bible.
I always thought he did, but he could be a character based on other people, that would be interesting. Either way, it doesn't detract from his philosophy, Lao Tzu wasn't a real person, either.
Jesus doesn't exist, it goes againt scientific belief. If Jesus existed, than that would mean that god existed. And god goes against science so he doesn't exist.
I think Jesus actually did exist, but over the decades and hundreds of years since the Bible was first written, how can you expect anything accurate? We have a game in language learning classes where everyone sits in a circle. The first person tells the next person a short one or two sentence story, and then he/she whispers it to the next. By the time it reaches the last person, the story or sentence has no resemblance to the original! Fact in point - over just a ten minute period! I wonder who this "John of Gamala, 1st century Jew who fought against the Roman army" was? Anyone ever heard of him?
That's not really true. Jesus could've existed but not God, you know. I mean Jesus, I don't believe this or anything, but Jesus could've just been some radical who thought he was the son of God. I mean I could go around saying I'm the savior and so on. I could write a Bible. I'm not saying that's right. Just making a point.
to understand about 'Jesus' means having to understand pagan mythology, as the authors of The Jesus Mysteries ..etc have shown the whole myth of Jesus is the effort by Alexandrain Jews to combine the anceint myth of the 'god-man' with Judaism so who is this anceint god-man? in its original form he is not son of 'God' but te everliving every dying ever regenerating son of the Goddess what does he represent? Nature and its cycles, the instinctual erotic and fertilizing male energies also, the very sacramental psychedelic mushroom, which by assocation was seen to be of a phallic shape. understand that prepatriarchal, preliterate mythology was IMAGE, poetic associational imagery what the Catholic chruch did/do is devoid 'Jesus' of te sexual erotic energies and the cyclical regeneratative nature, and create this 'superman'....son of 'God'. from 'above' NOT from Nature. this dogma splits the beiever from her own instinctual nature and from Nature that is the Church's crime against humanity. and Nature
WHAT??? The Catholic church is true to the Bible. In the Bible it says all that stuff. That he is the son of God. The Lord...etc. The Church isn't against humanity, and nature. The Church understand that there is sin in this world and people can be forgiven.
did it forgive the countless woman and pgans and heritics it persecuted and murdered--which its never apolgized for?? NO......so wake up kid and smell the roses you've been had!
I bet it doesn't fly in court. I am sure the Catholic Church as a whole has more pull than that. In a way, oddly, the catholic church is like its own country.
yes it has VASTS amount of dosh, much of which was stolen from the people it persecuted tis is not to say it also hasn't done some good too mind
If Jesus existed, and in all likelihood he didn't, he was probably just some nut with a messiah complex like just about any leaders of a cult....that cult has just evolved into an organized body consisting of some quarter of the world's population... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Agreed. And it's utterly ridiculous. They call religion faith for a reason, having to prove concretely whether Jesus existed or not (which isn't possible either way unless the Church has been hiding something) should not be required of the Church. Comparing the Catholic Church to an everyday swindler is despicable, and this is coming from a non-Catholic.
Just to add to what you say, Mary Magdellan may or may not have married Jesus. Google it and you'll see the pros and cons about this. Jesus may have been married, i.e., IF there ever was a Jesus?
************* M*W: As a former devout Catholic, I found out the truth when I visited Vatican City and St. Peter's. It's a creepy, eerie place of pagan idol worship. Statues of Jesus were everywhere, but the place was evil. My skin crawled. The visitors around me were worshipping idols. They taught me a lot. It's all a lie. I hope the truth is widespread while I'm still around.
The way I see, cave man looked up to the sky and saw the sun. Everyday it reappeared and created the predictable daylight, thus they began to worship the almighty important Sun. Sun Gods extended through both Greek and Egyptian history. Later, cave man marvelled at fire, and it's ability to cook food and most important of all, to provide heat on those oh so cold nights, thus the worship of fire - similar to the sun as being so bright and active. This could have been the origin of beliefs in animism: the belief in a multitude of spirits in objects, animals, plants, evil and good things, etc. Either way, this gives rise to a belief in more than one god (a plurality), as in the Greek Pantheism of Gods. Later rulers of Rome decreed that it was unlawful to believe in all these gods, thus the belief in believing in only one god arose. This act by other rulers to limit the belief in one god continued throughout various other areas of the Western world - but not East Asia. And within these various areas, their god became the one and only god. Thus the reason for differences in religions to say that their god is different from the other religion's god. And this is where we are at today.
