Jeesus: Fact or Fiction?

[Revolt]

Well, this should be fun.


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 case pits against each other two men in their 70s, who are from the same central Italian town and even went to the same seminary school in their teenage years.

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 the 1st century Jew who fought against the Roman army.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060105/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_religion_court&printer=1;_ylt=AsPIW9CvvTdaqZYoQF8pYhOek3QF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

[YankHibee]

This should be good. (subscribes)

[christopher d]

Don't know how this guy wins his case. He's not basing it on theology (ie, that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God, worked a bunch of miracles, etc), he's basing it on the premise that there was no such person as Jesus of Nazareth. That's been proven dozens of times. I've not read the book, but he sounds like a former believer with an axe to grind.

[YankHibee]

Once upon a time I did an honors thesis on the historical Jesus. I came across all kinds of theories, but ones saying there simply was no person by that name are pretty hard to support.

[ratdog]

Once upon a time I did an honors thesis on the historical Jesus. I came across all kinds of theories, but ones saying there simply was no person by that name are pretty hard to support.

But I don't even believe in Jebus!

Actually, I believe the idea of "Fact or fiction?" to contain a false dichotomy. It could be that there was a historical Y'shua but that he was little like his portrayal in the final version of the NT. This would make the likely correct answer to the question - "Yes".

[DoctorD]

So what does the Italian mail service currently do with all the letters addressed to "Jesus"?

[christopher d]

So what does the Italian mail service currently do with all the letters addressed to "Jesus"?
Posts like this are why the rep system is such a wonderful thing. :)

[JBigjake]

So what does the Italian mail service currently do with all the letters addressed to "Jesus"?
In the upcoming feature film, "Miracolo su Strada 34", the climatic scene will find bags of mail dumped on the Italian judge's bench. Since this is a modern film, the opposing parties will reconcile, then register as domestic partners.
P.S. I originally dumped this article into Weird News, but since there's now a Religion sub-forum, the thread is worth it! http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1967413,00.html

[spejic]

Don't know how this guy wins his case. He's not basing it on theology (ie, that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God, worked a bunch of miracles, etc), he's basing it on the premise that there was no such person as Jesus of Nazareth. That's been proven dozens of times.Err, by who?

[HerthaBerwyn]

Jesus as heir to the throne of David I thought to be well recognized. As I understand it the Divinity was voted upon at the Council of Nicea. The Sone of God is an invention of man.

[kopiteinkc]

My 8 year old daughter came from school and told me there were two Jesuses.

I said, "What do you mean?"

She replied: "you know, the 'fake jesus' and the other one, when you say: 'jesus, close the door!'"

:D

[bradley31]

Err, by who?

I don't know if this is a sarcastic post or not. I hope it is because it's pretty clear from the historical evidence that there was in fact a man named Jesus about whom the New Testament was based. You can argue whether he is the son of God if you want, but you can't really argue that he did not exist. Well actually you can... but you'd be wrong.

[christopher d]

Err, by who?
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/feb99/919714996.Sh.r.html

Some dude named Flavius Josephus

[Anthony]

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/feb99/919714996.Sh.r.html

Some dude named Flavius Josephus

In fairness, there are two thoughts on Josephus's "Jesus text."

One is that oit was a throw away line, mostly to show how good Jews like Josephus could still be good residents of the empire, unlike the bad Jews such as Jesus and the Zealots.

The second is that it was inserted later into the text.

I obviously believe there was a historical Jesus, and I believe he was crucified by the Romans. We can argue about the rest.

[bojendyk]

One is that oit was a throw away line, mostly to show how good Jews like Josephus could still be good residents of the empire, unlike the bad Jews such as Jesus and the Zealots.

The second is that it was inserted later into the text.

I've never read Josephus, but I thought I remember hearing that there is indeed a reference to Jesus (something bland along the lines of "A man named Jesus was reported to have done many wonderful things"), and that this reference was later edited to make it more notable. Is that correct?

Also, I know that other self-proclaimed prophets/saviors existed in Jerusalem at the same time as Jesus. Is this also from Josephus?

[sebakoole]

I highly recommend "The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant" to anyone who's interested in these questions. The author, John Dominic Crossan, doesn't take the gospels as the infallible word of God. He uses plenty of non-biblical sources and even delves into the Josephus issue. IIRC, Crossan concluded that the references to Jesus were part of Josephus' orginal writings, but the bit about the miracles and such were added later by the church.

Amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060616296/qid=1136823704/sr=2-3/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_3/102-5433973-2738549?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

[Thomas A Fina]

So what does the Italian mail service currently do with all the letters addressed to "Jesus"?

This is the Italian Mail service, they probably haven't delivered the ones sent from Copernicus yet.

[dj43]

I highly recommend "The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant" to anyone who's interested in these questions. The author, John Dominic Crossan, doesn't take the gospels as the infallible word of God. He uses plenty of non-biblical sources and even delves into the Josephus issue. IIRC, Crossan concluded that the references to Jesus were part of Josephus' orginal writings, but the bit about the miracles and such were added later by the church.

Amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060616296/qid=1136823704/sr=2-3/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_3/102-5433973-2738549?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
I have heard of Crossan but have not read the book. Based on your post I have two comments.

1. Josephus was born in 37 AD which means he was not an eyewitness to Jesus' life. His primary writings are creditied around 70-90 AD. Since most of the NT, and at least the Synoptic gospels were written BEFORE that time, it doesn't fit that his work would play into the content of the NT. So while he does reference Jesus and his miracles, he does not have the same credibility as the original NT writers, though that does not indict the credibility of his assertions per se.

2. The very matter-of-fact Gospel of Mark is widely recognized to have been written between 50 and 70 AD. In that gospel, Mark details numerous miracles of Jesus that were witnessed by literally tens of thousands of people.

Therefore, since Mark wrote of these things well within the lifetime of actual eyewitnesses to the events, it would seem logical that if he was writing lies, there would have been many who would have challenged and discredited his account. The fact is, there are no refutations. On the contrary, there are Jewish writers, who did not accept that Jesus was the Son of God and rose from the dead, who admitted that Jesus existed, had many followers, and did wondrous things. So given that we have those records of non-believers of Jesus' divinity, it would seem obvious that if Mark had written lies about miracles, this would have been the place they would have been exposed. But not only did they not expose them for lies, they referenced "wondrous things." Now while "wondrous things" are not the same as "miracles," the fact remains that these writings would have been an obvious place for their refutation. Does not the fact there was no refutation there indicate the truth of Mark's (and the other gospel writers) accounts?

To add more weight to the argument, there are many who feel that Matthew and Luke drew upon Mark's writings for a portion of their gospels. And their gospels were also written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. So now we have at least the 3 Synoptic gospels, which were widely distributed among the early church groups, that all had the same story with no refutation. So while some claim "the church" destroyed all contrary writings, this claim would have us believe that "the church" would have had possession of all the contrary writings. This claim is foolishness on its face. If someone were writing contrary to "the church's" position, how would "the church" have gotten possession of those writings? How would "the church" have even know about all of them? Why would anyone give their critical writing to their opponent? These claims do not make sense.

Jesus was fact.

[monop_poly]

My 8 year old daughter came from school and told me there were two Jesuses.

I said, "What do you mean?"

She replied: "you know, the 'fake jesus' and the other one, when you say: 'jesus, close the door!'"

:D

Are you sure your daughter goes to school in Kansas?

[spejic]

2. The very matter-of-fact Gospel of Mark is widely recognized to have been written between 50 and 70 AD.That is just a guess. No one mentions any of the gospels until Theopholis of Antioch in 180 CE.In that gospel, Mark details numerous miracles of Jesus that were witnessed by literally tens of thousands of people.Well, more than that witnessed Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear, so forgive me for being sceptical of an uncheckable and self-serving document.Therefore, since Mark wrote of these things well within the lifetime of actual eyewitnesses to the events, it would seem logical that if he was writing lies, there would have been many who would have challenged and discredited his account. The fact is, there are no refutations.There were plenty. Not only were there written arguments between Christians and Jews, but there were many different sects of Christians with their own contradictory gospels.On the contrary, there are Jewish writers, who did not accept that Jesus was the Son of God and rose from the dead, who admitted that Jesus existed, had many followers, and did wondrous things.If you mean Josephus, why did he write only one sentence about Jesus Christ if he was so famous and important? He goes on and on about minor characters like Jesus,son of Sapphias (a pirate) or Jesus, son of Ananias (who profisiced the fall of Jerusalem for years and was finally stoned). (I guess Jesus was a common name.) And if he was so important, why wasn't he mentioned by Philo, a contemporary of Jesus?So now we have at least the 3 Synoptic gospels, which were widely distributed among the early church groups, that all had the same story with no refutation.So... can you tell me who Jesus's grandfather was?