It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Priest Must Prove In Court Jesus Christ Did Exist

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   



www.channel3000.com...

ROME -- Lawyers for a Roman Catholic priest have been ordered to appear in court next week after he was accused of unlawfully asserting that Jesus Christ really existed.


Seems to me quite strange that this story is happening in Rome, the international headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church.

Wonder how this one will turn out.

- One Man Short

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I guess a lot depends on what they accept as evidence. Being so long ago most evidence could be classified as 'heresay' where the writers of the time may have wrote about him but not actually met him. Witness accounts would be difficult because few would be able to write their own accounts. Could be a difficult case to prove in a court of law unless they have documentation of charges brought against him. ...

Maybe the Vatican has something we don't know about???


56

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   
what they should be proving is not if Jesus existed, but if Jesus was who everyone thinks he was.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by 56
what they should be proving is not if Jesus existed, but if Jesus was who everyone thinks he was.


Yea man i agree.

We shouldnt debate his exsistence..but what did he stand for.

So what happens if they cant prove he exsisted..will he descend from heaven and prove them wrong?

Is this a prophecy in the making?



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
There seems to be a lot of controversy about Jesus, but I agree that the main thing that should be discussed is his message and not the question of his existence. I mean, look at all these other historical figures that people unanimously agree existed such as Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, etc. who lived way before Jesus. Although I guess the controversy just proves His importance to a degree.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
humanity determines time itself by Jesus Christ's life. i mean come on. duh you know BC and AD.

[edit on 23-1-2006 by Funkydung]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Yeah, I absolutely believe that Jesus existed. The point I was making was that no one questions the existence of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, etc. and they lived a long time before Jesus did. So really, since we're farther removed from their time period it seems that there should be more doubt over their existence than Jesus' but no one questions their existence.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by Rock Lobster]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Why would anyone question their existence if we have proof of their existence, their own writings and the works of others whom studied under them? Now some people might think that the bible is all the evidence that the world needs for Jesus’ existence. For all I know those who believe in Jesus might be right. But than again he could’ve just been another really smart guy like Socrates and the like.

All in all I do agree with 56 as well. It shouldn't matter who wrote what and/or if they truly did exist. The important thing is that we evaluate the messages left to us by our ancestors.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I believe most people acknowledge the fact that he lived, whether or not he did what they claim is a whole other subject though

[edit on 24-1-2006 by Panzeroth]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Yo that avatar is pretty cool..its that a picture of you?



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
That would be correct



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Problem is, is that the new testament was written 70 years after Jesus died, with further additions 80 years after that.
And they were gospels according to this guy or that guy.

-What was added to make it more dramatic?
-What was added to ensure people follow this religion?
-How well can human memory and exaggeration be trusted as the word of god?
-What kings and rulers added their 2 cents as to how it was edited?

So, who was Jesus, could it just be that he was just a regular man with some cool idea's?

Wished I knew.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Pjpuas, that is a good point about their writings with the exception of Socrates. There are no known writings of Socrates in existence, as all the supposed teachings of Socrates are written by Plato, Aristotle, and others.

Anyway, regarding the question of Jesus' existence it seems to me that there is just too much evidence affirming this. For one thing, it seems hard to believe that a fictional character would hold the amount of interest that Jesus has, over the last 2,000 years no less. I mean seriously, He's bigger than the Beatles (sorry John Lennon). Also, Jesus is not only the central figure in Christianity, but is considered a prophet in Islam. This strengthens the case for His existence as he is an important figure in more than one religious/cultural tradition.

Finally, the gospels may have been written after Jesus' time on earth, but it was soon enough that people would've been able to know if they were truth or fiction. I mean, if you believe that Jesus really did the things talked about in the gospels (healing illnesses, raising people from the dead, feeding the 5,000, etc.) then people would have certainly talked about these things for a while after Jesus left and I'm sure they would have told their children and so on. Personally, I think this is the most likely scenario as it would explain how the story of Jesus was passed down through time and still remains before us today.

Of course, if someone reading this is dead set againsty Jesus' existence, I suppose the points I listed here won't be enough to convince them, but that's just my 2 cents.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund
Problem is, is that the new testament was written 70 years after Jesus died, with further additions 80 years after that.
And they were gospels according to this guy or that guy.


Normally I pass on by, but you said something that made me pause, which was...


Originally posted by Toadmund
Wished I knew.


And it made me smile
. Here's what is written (only one of a few examples), "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." - 2 Peter 1:16

If you want to receive the free gift of eternal life, feel free to U2U me.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rock Lobster
Yeah, I absolutely believe that Jesus existed. The point I was making was that no one questions the existence of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, etc. and they lived a long time before Jesus did. So really, since we're farther removed from their time period it seems that there should be more doubt over their existence than Jesus' but no one questions their existence.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by Rock Lobster]



hmmm....wonder why. i think we all know the reason.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
For what its worth, jesus' message isn't anywhere as nearly important as the 'fact' of his existence, to most christians. This is not as base as it sounds. THe message, for most christians, of jesus, is, from what I understand, 'god gave up his only son to redeem man', and 'jesus was crucified, suffered, died, and was buried, on the third day he rose again'. Indeed, that is the Nicene Creed, a fundamental statement of the christian faith. Not 'turn the other cheek and love one another'. Lots of people were pacifists, its not the pacifism that is central to the religion, regardless of how much some people like the pacifistic message.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   
pure religious oppression is all this is, being sued for contradcting the author of a book about jesus not existing...obsurd....


if i was the church i'd sue the government, the judge and author.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by namehere]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
pure religious oppression is all this is, being sued for contradcting the author of a book about jesus not existing...obsurd....


You've got it backwards. The atheist is suing the church... you did read the story posted by 'one man short of manhood' before commenting on how absurd it was, yes?



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Rren

no the priest was sued by the author, an atheist, i read, sued for saying things opposing his book, using an excuse of popular tendency to easily believe, contending his opposition hurt his book, as basis for his suit.

church or preist, its still abusing a law to silence religion, its oppression.

ps: i read a much more detailed article a few weeks ago on this.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Signor Cascioli, author of a book called The Fable of Christ, began legal proceedings against Father Righi three years ago after the priest denounced Signor Cascioli in the parish newsletter for questioning Christ’s historical existence.

Yesterday Gaetano Mautone, a judge in Viterbo, set a preliminary hearing for the end of this month and ordered Father Righi to appear. The judge had earlier refused to take up the case, but was overruled last month by the Court of Appeal, which agreed that Signor Cascioli had a reasonable case for his accusation that Father Righi was “abusing popular credulity”.

it is obsurd and wouldnt stand in a US court, it shouldnt in any state which values religious tolerance and state seperation.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by namehere]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
Rren

no the priest was sued by the author, an atheist, i read, sued for saying things opposing his book, using an excuse of popular tendency to easily believe, contending his opposition hurt his book, as basis for his suit.

church or preist, its still abusing a law to silence religion, its oppression.

ps: i read a much more detailed article a few weeks ago on this.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Signor Cascioli, author of a book called The Fable of Christ, began legal proceedings against Father Righi three years ago after the priest denounced Signor Cascioli in the parish newsletter for questioning Christ’s historical existence.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by namehere]


Apologies namehere i mis-read your post... thanks for the link.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join