Topic awaiting preservation: Did Jesus exist? Court to decide

ROME, Italy (Reuters) -- Forget the U.S. debate over intelligent design versus evolution.

quote:

---

Even Cascioli admits that the odds are against him, especially in Roman Catholic Italy.

"It would take a miracle to win," he joked.

---

Jesus Christ! I'm gonna light a candle and make a prayer to see that miracle. ... wait a minute I can't do that.

Good idea.

Wrong venue.

If it went to trial, unlikely, it would sure provide some ionteresting copy.

If such a trial were held in a rational court (not Italian or american), the vatican would surely lose as hear-say evidence, which is what the bible is and upon which they would base their argument, is not admissable in a rational and reasoned court.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

So, they are using up tax payer dollars to decide if a historical figure is real or not? Sounds like a waste of time, money, and talent to me. However, it would be fun to watch.

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

James02: They are using ? not $, to determine if a biblical figure has really existed.

quote:

---

poi said:

James02: They are using ? not $, to determine if a biblical figure has really existed.

---

What does that have to do with anything?

The point about ? and $ is anedoctical.

However, the existence, or not, of Jesus is the exact reason why Cascioli engaged this lawsuit. According to him Jesus did not exist, and "The Church constructed Christ upon the personality of John of Gamala" which results in a violation of Italian laws.

I doubt it'll happen, but it could be the occasion to investigate thoroughly if Jesus really existed.

I still don't understand youre point over which currency is being used...James didn't say anything about USD - he just said money.

I understand the basis of the guy's supposed reason.

It is entirely absurd to suppose that a court of law can/will determine the historical existence of a person 2,000 years in the past.

If this actually makes it to a trial, it will be more absurd than the people who sue when they spill hot coffee on themeselves.

If any court in the world actually takes it upon themselves to determine the historical accuracy of ancient biographcial issues, then the world has taken one more step toward the downfall of human society.

This is a scholarly debate, not a legal one. The fight to make it a legal one only makes atheists look like fools.

quote:

---

I still don't understand youre point over which currency is being used...James didn't say anything about USD - he just said money.

---

I was picky, and slightly annoyed that James02 said "tax payer dollars" instead "tax payer's money" as if there was nothing outside of the countries using dollars currencies.

Sure there's enough absurd trials.

As for the debate. If a thoroughly study determine that the Jesus did not exist, the Church won't be allowed to "Abuso di Credulita Popolare" (Abuse of Popular Belief) any more. And this would bring the debate on a legal stage.

But I'm not naive, I expect nothing more from this lawsuit than a few headlines.

quote:

---

poi said:

As for the debate. If a thoroughly study determine that the Jesus did not exist,

---

A thorough study, the likes of which has been going on for the last hundred years or more, with no clear scholarly concensus pointing one direction or the other?

Hordes of scholars, of christian, jewish, islamic, atheist, and other backgrounds can't bring a clear end to the issue, but you have hope that a court of law *can*?

The point is, the debate has no place on a "legal stage". To try to get it there is ridiculous.

This particular case is exceptionally ridiculous, but any attempt to use the law to determine the historocity of Jesus is just stupid and pointless beyond my ability to describe with words...

Yah and for a little while some church types may shiver a little while diddling their choir boys.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Great quote I heard today from Canadian poet and wonderful antigonist Irvine Layton.

"Christianity is just Judiasm ... with a nose job." =)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

quoteoi said:As for the debate. If a thoroughly study determine that the Jesus did not exist,A thorough study, the likes of which has been going on for the last hundred years or more, with no clear scholarly concensus pointing one direction or the other? Hordes of scholars, of christian, jewish, islamic, atheist, and other backgrounds can't bring a clear end to the issue, but you have hope that a court of law *can*?The point is, the debate has no place on a "legal stage". To try to get it there is ridiculous.This particular case is exceptionally ridiculous, but any attempt to use the law to determine the historocity of Jesus is just stupid and pointless beyond my ability to describe with words...

---

On this I agree, 100%. This issue has no business being tried in a Court of Law.

Utter hogwash.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

Sorry about my mistake Poi. I was just exercising my right to American ignorance.

quote:

---

James02I was just exercising my right to American ignorance.

---

On purpose? As a joke? :roll:

quote:

---

DL-44The point is, the debate has no place on a "legal stage".

---

So you denouce the "legal stage", of ITALY?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:This issue has no business being tried in a Court of Law.

---

Yet according to Italian law, you are simply,................................wrong.

All 3 of you,......ask yourselves this,.................Anna Nicole has the right to take her case to the Supreme court,..................but this court case disgusts you?

Pa-Lease!!!!!!!!!



Not to mention, that the Church will lose this case, if actually forced to PROVE his existance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

Zynx said:

So you denouce the "legal stage", of ITALY?

---

Uh....... huh????

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Yet according to Italian law, you are simply,................................wrong.

---

And how do you come to this conclusion?

Just because a suit has been filed based on a point of italian law, does not mean that the point the plaintiff is trying to make is actually supported by italian law. It also does not mean that the case will even make it to court -

quote:

---

...at a January 27 preliminary hearing meant to determine whether the case has enough merit to go forward.

---

And assuming it *does* go to court, it does not mean that the court will actually make a determination regarding the historocity of Jesus. Such a determination is *not* the courts obligation.

quote:

---

Zynx said:

All 3 of you,......ask yourselves this,.................Anna Nicole has the right to take her case to the Supreme court,..................but this court case disgusts you?

---

Regardless of my view of Anna Nicole, or the laws in question, it is in fact a situation that can be determined in a court of law. In fact, the issue in question is entirely a legal one.

This really is very simple Zynx: no court, regardless of what nation it belongs to, can actually determine the historical accuracy of ancient biographical material. It is completely absurd to even entertain the idea.

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Not to mention, that the Church will lose this case, if actually forced to PROVE his existance.

---

The church cannot fail in this regard. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof. The plaintiff hopes to prove that jesus did *not* exist. This is enitrely impossible to do. In a scholarly setting, it can most certainly be presented as a theory that Jesus did not exist, and can be supported from many views. The opposite is also true. This debate has gone on for many decades at least, and presumably much longer.

The general scholarly concensus is that such a man did exist. The specifics are nowhere near clear nor agreed upon.



(Edited by DL-44 on 01-20-2006 03:13)

Sorry DL, the burden of proof is always upon the party which makes the positive claim. In this case, the postive claim is that there was a xist.

But I agree, it will not likely come to trial.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

No. The positive claim is not being made the chruch. The plaintiff is the one making that actual claim. Read the article - his claim is that the biblical figure of Jesus is based on a different person -

quote:

---

The Church constructed Christ upon the personality of John of Gamala

---

1) He is actually making a claim of what transpired

2) He is making the complaint

The burden of proof is his.

But again, this is all pointless.
Were it to go to trial, and the historocity of Jesus were to become the focal point, the world could become bankrupt hiring experts to continually debate the matter for the rest of human existence without ever coming to an actual conclusion that would stand up in any way.

~shrug~



(Edited by DL-44 on 01-20-2006 05:11)

DL-44:

quote:

---

Were it to go to trial, and the historocity of Jesus were to become the focal point, the world could become bankrupt hiring experts to continually debate the matter for the rest of human existence without ever coming to an actual conclusion that would stand up in any way.

---

This is where, or should I say "when", John TITOR and SpaceFold come to the rescue.

That is my point, while technically the complaint is as you state DL, the case IN FACT, would necessitate the church proving the historical existance of xist...which is an unfounded claim they have been making for what...16-1800 years?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

The case, "in fact", would be whatever was put before the court and would depend on what direction the court wants to take it.

The very fact that there is issue with what exactly the case would be is evidence enough that this has no place in a legal forum.

Speaking from a scholarly or scientific point of view, about the historocity of Jesus or the existence of god, or other such things, you are correct.

The whole point is that the attempt is being made to drag it into a court of law where the rules are far different. It is being dragged before the court, because a plaintiff is making a positive claim in regard to the history of Jesus.

The whole affair is so ridiculous it is hard to even put into words.

People like this drag the rest of us down and cause serious harm in the liong run to the valid points in regard to christian history vs. the church's version of christian history.

Poi - good point. Spacefold, if you can possibly fill me in on any future progression of this case, I would be forever grateful





(Edited by DL-44 on 01-20-2006 18:16)

I think spacefold will be just fine as soon as he starts using a better grade of tin foil.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:Just because a suit has been filed based on a point of italian law,
does not mean that the point the plaintiff is trying to make is actually supported by italian law.

---

Let me see,..........................So those who file suit against the constitutionality of Abortion,(US Law), are not actually supported by the constitution,(US Law)? Maybe I have misunderstood u.

Ok, look at this way. An abuse of Popular Credulity, which is meant to protect people against being swindled or conned, and the second charge, false impersonation, are points, deemed illegal, by Italian law. This law allows ALL persons to state their point of possible abuse, or false statements, that have harmed society, or ANY person(s), within that society. Of ALL entity's that could meet this standard, religion is tops on the list!

quote:

---

DL-44 said:no court, regardless of what nation it belongs to, can actually determine the historical accuracy of ancient biographical material.

---

So faith voids the notion?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:The general scholarly concensus is that such a man did exist.

---

So, faith supports the notion.

" Bravo brother Luigi, you have the audacity to challenge humanity?s thinking. We reject Saint Augustine?s authoritarian dictate: ?It is not permissible to say or even think that any of the evangelists might have lied ? we must believe that contradictory statements are actually in agreement, even if we do not see how this can be true.? May Luigi Cascioli?s efforts challenge men and women to consider the roots of all religion and its impact on humanity for good or for ill, especially if not based on credible historical evidence. As Luigi quipped, ?It will take a miracle.? Do you suppose Mary will intervene? "

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan06/Salisbury.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

Zynx said:

So faith voids the notion?

---

This has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.

quote:

---

Zynx said:

So, faith supports the notion.

---

Neither does this.

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Maybe I have misunderstood u.

---

So it would seem.

So I guess that's your way of saying yes?

Ok.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

Zynx said:

So I guess that's your way of saying yes?

---

okie dokie then...



(Edited by DL-44 on 01-25-2006 00:27)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

okie dokie then...

---

You've got a funny way of dealing with people who agree with you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

You have a very funny way of trying to say something...

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

That is my point, while technically the complaint is as you state DL, the case
IN FACT, would necessitate the church proving the historical existance of
xist...which is an unfounded claim they have been making for what...16-1800
years?

---

D-man, I am in no ways an expert of law, but isn't it up to the plaintiff to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the claims he or she has made? In this case the plaintiff would have to prove that a man who lived 2000ish years ago, in a small throw-away country, ran by a nobody governor, having it's records soon after destroyed by Rome, was mistaken as someone else.

Also, about hearsay:

quote:

---

Hearsay n. 1) second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her

---

quote:

---

as significant as the hearsay rule itself are the exceptions to the rule which allow hearsay testimony such as:... e) a "learned treatise" which means historical works, scientific books, published art works, maps and charts...

---

from law.com Law Dictionary
So, I think this clause was made for those who want to go and mess around in a court of law with things that happened in the ancient past. Leave it to the scholars to do research and argue. We don't need that stuff in a court of law.

But, there are no contemporary historical works which mention the imaginary xist.

ALL mentions of him start a 100 or more years after the alleged existance.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

James02 said:
but isn't it up to the plaintiff to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the claims...

---

"beyond a reasonable doubt" is the phrase you are looking for, and it is a phrase associated directly with American law.

As for the actually historocity of Jesus....if we are going to delve back into that again, let's at least start a new thread for it....

quote:

---

As for the actually historocity of Jesus....if we are going to delve back into that again, let's at least start a new thread for it....

---

ROFL!!

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

What? Another one?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Reagan
JFK
Hitler
Napoleon
Nero
Achilles
Plato
The seven wonders of the ancient world

So how far back in time do we go, so that the majority of us all agree that a person/things existed?

And should religious personas/things have exceptions to this question?

(Edited by Zynx on 01-27-2006 01:07)

Reagan, JFK, Hitler, Napoleaon and Plato are pretty much dead ringers. Enough evidence exits to prove their existance.

Nero, Achilles and the Seven wonders of the Ancient World are a bit harder.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

quote:

---

WebShamanReagan, JFK, Hitler, Napoleaon and Plato are pretty much dead ringers. Enough evidence exits to prove their existance. Nero, Achilles and the Seven wonders of the Ancient World are a bit harder.

---

Do such religious persons or objects have exception to the question?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

Zynx said:

ReaganJFKHitlerNapoleonNeroAchillesPlatoThe seven wonders of the ancient worldSo how far back in time do we go, so that the majority of us all agree that a person/things existed?And should religious personas/things have exceptions to this question?

---

Ok, can you tell me what that has to do with anything?

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

What? Another one?

---

That's kinda my point dio
Rather than turn this into one of those...if you feel inclined to delve back into the topic, start - yes - another one

quote:

---

DL-44Ok, can you tell me what that has to do with anything?

---

Your a bit pathetic DL.

Your always asking for clarification on YOUR ideas, without admitting the KNOWN reality!

I tire of your ill-factual demands!

Next time, try & B more clear!

(Edited by Zynx on 01-27-2006 03:06)

Yeah....



Why don't you go find a nice corner to hide in....

And the latest is here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4653200.stm

You know, they guy might have a chance, presented the way the article explains it.

This is hardly evidence;

quote:

---

The priest has countered that millions around the world have long believed in the evidence of the Gospels as well as thousands of other religious and secular writings.

---

It seems unilkely the church would be able to bring forward anything more cogent than the above paragraph in their defense.

Believe does not prove fact.

In any event if it goes to trial as a "fraud" case, it will be a media circus like no nother we have seen since Diana died.

I rather hope it does. Could prove very interesting regardless of whether or not Cascioli wins.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

(Edited by Diogenes on 01-27-2006 19:21)

Whatever the outcome, I love to watch "religions" squirm!

Is it so bad to ask that "religions" prove themselves?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Is it so bad to ask that "religions" prove themselves?

---

In a court of law? Yes.

And I hardly think this bit of idiocy is making any part of the 'catholic collective' squirm...

In reality all it does for the vast majority of people is make atheists look like fools. With any luck, it may cause a hadnful of people to reeavaluate their religion....but that may be overly optimistic.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:In a court of law? Yes.

---

Why? If law deals with absolutes, then why not?
Then again, perhaps there is another avenue to ask for such answers?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:And I hardly think this bit of idiocy is making any part of the 'catholic collective' squirm...

---

Oh I'm sure that the "higher catholic collective" is not squirming, but the idea is most assuredly being discussed. It is either being discussed to squash the idea, or it is being discussed to squash the idea.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:In reality all it does for the vast majority of people is make atheists
look like fools. With any luck, it may cause a handful of people to re-evaluate their religion....but that may be overly optimistic.

---

Even if it gets 1 person to question religion, I am all for it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Why? If law deals with absolutes, then why not?

---

1) the fact that law attempts to be absolute is precisely why it cannot be the avenue used to explore religion or ancient history. ancient history is interpretive, as is every religion, even those who claim to be absolute.

2) while law does indeed attempt to deal with absolutes, it never actually succeeds.

3) with the errors constantly made by courts of law, the idea that a court could rule on a matter of subjective ancient history is completely absurd. We can't get it right when passing verdicts on the actions of people that are captured on video, supported by DNA, etc, but a court ruling is supposed to have any sort of bearing on the question of whether a man existed 2,000 years ago?

C'mon...

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Then again, perhaps there is another avenue to ask for such answers?

---

Of course. The scholarly and philosophical communities to which these questions are subjected to daily across the world.

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Even if it gets 1 person to question religion, I am all for it.

---

Normally I might agree. But in this case the negative association that intelligent atheists will be subject to as a result of fools like this guy outweighs any possible positive outcome.

IMO.



(Edited by DL-44 on 02-08-2006 02:43)

quote:

---

Normally I might agree. But in this case the negative association that intelligent atheists will be subject to as a result of fools like this guy outweighs any possible positive outcome.

---

Well said.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

If I may;

FACTS, or the presentation of such FACTS, would surely have been the optimal role, in order to increase one's followers. I don't think that the major reason to expand one's flock of followers, was created by simply asking one to BELIEVE. So, if religious leaders use FACTS to entice people to follow a religion, then should not such leaders be questioned about such FACTS?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:But in this case the negative association that intelligent atheists will be subject to,

---

Huh? So what! Who cares if a, "negative association", exists within the realm of such, "intelligent atheists"!
I prefer the BRUSH FIRE concept, on such religious questions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

then should not such leaders be questioned about such FACTS?

---

Obviously. Nobody has suggested otherwise. Once again I have to ask: your point?

As for the negative association: it is much like decent christians who have to put up with having Pat Roberts be the loudmouth who gets the attention...

People who damage the legitimate side of an argument by being stupid in their use of the argument only hurt the "cause" so to speak.

quote:

---

Zynxthen should not such leaders be questioned about such FACTS?

---

quote:

---

DL-44As for the negative association: it is much like decent christians who have to put up with having Pat Roberts be the loudmouth who gets the attention...People who damage the legitimate side of an argument by being stupid in their use of the argument only hurt the "cause" so to speak.

---

You answer here kinda answers my question above.

I figured that even if we can get such religious leaders to explain their positions on what they preach as facts, it's a good thing. Open up religion and it's leaders to the scrutiny of factual representation within religion. But I see the harm that that can cause others.

I still think that any "damage" created is a loss I would be willing to give, if we could hear the Church, and it's leaders explain their position.

And if the only way to get that done is by some duffiss using the law, then have at it.

Of all the stupid uses people use the courts for, this one might be interesting to hear from the defendants.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

Zynx said:

I still think that any "damage" created is a loss I would be willing to give, if we could hear the Church, and it's leaders explain their position.

And if the only way to get that done is by some duffiss using the law, then have at it.

---

You can hear the church leaders explain their positions over and over and over.

It is, of course, more difficult to get many of them to really dig in and debate the facts in a realistic manner. But, no matter how you slice it, christianity relies on faith as its bottom line. No court ruling, and discussion that would take place in court, would have any effect on that, nor would it bring to light any new information that is not already discussed constantly in the scholarly community at large.

Moving this discussion into court would only restrict, belitle, and nullify any potential conclusions.
After all, it is clear that court rulings are more about who argues better than they are about truth.

quote:

---

After all, it is clear that court rulings are more about who argues better than they are about truth

---

Then the Jesuits will win.

They are slicker and slipperier than a lawyer turned politican, but no more honest.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

it doesn't matter who wins in court. the issue whether Jesus really existed will still remain a mystery to us. so its just a matter of faith. if you believe that He existed, so be it. and if you don't then that's your opinion.

Short Run Printing

quote:

---

mhadxpresion said:

if you believe that He existed, so be it. and if you don't then that's your opinion.

---

The point, of course, is that there is far more to it than simply any given person's "opinion". There are the things on which an opinion is based. Things that *do* very much matter. While these things are too involved for a court of law to be of any use deciphering, they are fairly important, and go beyond simply 'beleiving' whether or not Jesus existed...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/10/italy.christ.ap/index.html


The madness continues,

" 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. "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

sometimes i read through these threads which used to be a great source of discussion, but then often they degenerate into petty bickering....

so maybe the next thread should be "does intellingent conversation within the asylum still exist? this thread will decide"

DL ya right, too many good threads end up digressing, stick to the topic guys and quit bitching.....

ok back to the 3d basement.... where things are almost normal... well sometimes even there bickering happens....

I guess I prefer to push the issue. It conjours up thoughts, that should be discussed, even if they are dumb, stupid, or otherwise.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48551


" Cascioli declares he is not intent on having the matter be decided by a court of law, saying, "I wrote to [Righi] an open letter, stating that I would withdraw the lawsuit if he were capable of supplying proof, just one proof, of the historical existence of Jesus. "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" Overhead the albatross, hangs motionless upon the air "