Italian Court to Decide Whether Jesus Existed

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Did Jesus exist? Italian court to decide

By Phil Stewart

ROME (Reuters) - 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.

A court in Viterbo will hear from Righi, who has yet to be indicted, at a January 27 preliminary hearing meant to determine whether the case has enough merit to go forward.

"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.

Speaking to Reuters, Righi, 76, sounded frustrated by the case and baffled as to why Cascioli -- who, like him, came from the town of Bagnoregio -- singled him out in his crusade against the Church.

"We're both from Bagnoregio, both of us. We were in seminary together. Then he took a different path and we didn't see each other anymore," Righi said.

"Since I'm a priest, and I write in the parish newspaper, he is now suing me because I 'trick' the people."

Righi claims there is plenty of evidence to support the existence of Jesus, including historical texts.

He also claims that justice is on his side. The judge presiding over the hearing has tried, repeatedly, to dismiss the case -- prompting appeals from Cascioli.

"Cascioli says he didn't exist. And I said that he did," he said. "The judge will to decide if Christ exists or not."

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

"It would take a miracle to win," he joked.
.
.
.
.
This guy is my hero.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Saturday, 7 January 2006 17:03 (twenty years ago)

*rimshot*

― it gradually dawned on me that my life is so crazy (Jody Beth Rosen), Saturday, 7 January 2006 17:06 (twenty years ago)

Well, if I remeber correctly Jesus rose form the dead, so shouldn't the question be "Is there a Jesus?" I mean he's still alive right? If he can prove there was never a Jesus perhaps everyone will stop going to church, or revert back to Judaisim.

― Green Olive Face (hanle y 3000), Sunday, 8 January 2006 08:08 (twenty years ago)

BLOOD FOR OIL!

― Kiwi, Sunday, 8 January 2006 08:25 (twenty years ago)

OIL OF CHRIST! AMEN!

― Green Olive Face (hanle y 3000), Sunday, 8 January 2006 08:27 (twenty years ago)

As far as I know there is no material proof of the existence of that jesus character. "historical" texts Righi is thinking of are hardly objective, being kept and transmitted by the vatican since they got hold of them it's historically understandable they made corrections along the way to compensate for naughty memory lapses of the original writers.

― S. (Sébastien Chikara), Sunday, 8 January 2006 08:27 (twenty years ago)

there's got to be something more than those texts yes?

― S. (Sébastien Chikara), Sunday, 8 January 2006 08:30 (twenty years ago)

i think weve done this before

― Kiwi, Sunday, 8 January 2006 08:34 (twenty years ago)

there are pictures of Jesus in the sistine chapel ceiling so he must have at least been around then.

― Green Olive Face (hanle y 3000), Sunday, 8 January 2006 08:35 (twenty years ago)

give me dem bones, I need dem bones

― Kiwi, Sunday, 8 January 2006 08:36 (twenty years ago)

xpost indeed we did Kiwi. btw are you a regular? just wondering.

― S. (Sébastien Chikara), Sunday, 8 January 2006 08:38 (twenty years ago)

nope- ILX "hates" me. *never* worked out why ;)

― Kiwi, Sunday, 8 January 2006 08:47 (twenty years ago)

This guy is my hero. Why exactly? General hostility to Christianity?

― DSelja, Sunday, 8 January 2006 08:50 (twenty years ago)

DSelja are you n/a? j/k

― S. (Sébastien Chikara), Sunday, 8 January 2006 08:50 (twenty years ago)

General hostility to Christianity?

Well there is that but its more the "STYLE" than "substance" and methinks more than a few folks hate the self defeating nature of their views . Alternatively I could just be an arsehole.

― Kiwi, Sunday, 8 January 2006 08:59 (twenty years ago)

It is futile to be hostile to christianity, it just turns the other cheek, and if you kill it it just rises from the grave!

― Green Olive Face (hanle y 3000), Sunday, 8 January 2006 09:02 (twenty years ago)

AMen sister

― Kiwi, Sunday, 8 January 2006 09:03 (twenty years ago)

Odds of an Italian court finding in favor of no Jesus? Anyone?

― Shmuel el Jaxon, Sunday, 8 January 2006 12:22 (twenty years ago)

"It would take a miracle."

x posts

I think there are a few relatively objective historical documents referring to Jesus. Tacitus described Nero's persecution of the Christians following the burning of Rome, and the passage doesn't appear to have been forged by later Christians as many other historical interpolations were. There might be a couple of other independent references that I can't remember. Not much evidence, but I'd say there probably was a genuine Jesus - it's just that almost everything written about him is bollocks.

― Excelsior Syndrum (noodle vague), Sunday, 8 January 2006 13:15 (twenty years ago)

Tacitus described Nero's persecution of the Christians following the burning of Rome, and the passage doesn't appear to have been forged by later Christians as many other historical interpolations were.

Yeah, but unless I remember wrong, Tacitus only refers to Christians who worship "Christ", not to any historical person called Jesus. The only source for the actual existence of this Christ in Tacitus are the Christians themselves - not exactly a reliable proof.

More on this subject can be read here.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Sunday, 8 January 2006 13:44 (twenty years ago)

Oh yeah Tuomas, it's not a definitive proof - which let's face it would be pretty unlikely - but if there were Christians in Rome under Nero then that's pretty close in time to a potential historical Jesus. Isn't it more likely that a person existed around whom the myths were written?

― Excelsior Syndrum (noodle vague), Sunday, 8 January 2006 13:50 (twenty years ago)

I think the argument on the website I linked to (also shared by other scholars on the subject) is that Christians originally worshipped some sort of metaphysical Christ (derived from earlier mythological figures of the area), and only during the second century (or late first century, I don't remember correctly) did the story of this metaphysical Christ turn into a story of an actual, living person called Jesus. This is why Paul, who wrote earlier than John, Matthew, Mark or Luke, doesn't mention anything about Christ's life on earth.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Sunday, 8 January 2006 13:58 (twenty years ago)

It's a bit of a pointless argument, though. Nobody will be able to prove definitively that Jesus didn't exist, so this isn't really historical research so much as special pleading. If the dude who wrote that website wants to criticise Christianity there are far more useful places to start than whether Jebus was a real person or not.

― Excelsior Syndrum (noodle vague), Sunday, 8 January 2006 14:04 (twenty years ago)

Well, just getting people to acknowledge that the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John accounts weren't eye-witness would be a massive step. That said, proving relatively nice non-judgemental socialist Jesus didn't exist is of less value to mankind than proving that gay-hating, menstruation-shunning, smiteaholic Old Testament Yahweh didn't exist.

― Vic Fluro (Vic Fluro), Sunday, 8 January 2006 14:08 (twenty years ago)

No serious scholar has claimed the Gospels are eye-witness accounts for many years. I'd be interested to hear how you propose to prove that Yahweh doesn't exist.

― Excelsior Syndrum (noodle vague), Sunday, 8 January 2006 14:10 (twenty years ago)

I'm not sure if he wants to criticise Christianity, but for long there seems to have been a consensus among historians that Jesus existed as a historical person, and scholars like him want to ask, what's the basis for Jesus's supposed existence as a real person? So it's about historical research rather than anti-Christianity; I doubt that many Christians would stop believing in Christ even if could be proven without a doubt that he wasn't a historical figure.

(x-post)

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Sunday, 8 January 2006 14:14 (twenty years ago)

Okay, I'll need a big roll of litmus paper and some tongs.

― Vic Fluro (Vic Fluro), Sunday, 8 January 2006 14:17 (twenty years ago)

You took pictures?

― So, Sunday, 8 January 2006 14:48 (twenty years ago)

I thought it was proven Jesus existed although I can't remember how exactly. What does that prove though? Just because he existed doesn't automatically make him the son of "God" so what's the point?
I like to think of him as the first Gob (AD, yo).

― sunny successor (katharine), Sunday, 8 January 2006 18:05 (twenty years ago)

Paul actually refers to knowing Jesus' brothers. Josephus, a Jewish historian that was a contemporary of Jesus, accuses him of "witchcraft" in one of historical accounts.

And no, I don't think if ever was proved without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus never existed (which is unlikely as his historical existence was documented by three secular sources, the epistles, the gospels, and the traditions of the early Church), then I think Christianity would be dealt a fairly deadly blow. Christianity is the belief in the a person who actually existed.

― Freud Junior, Third Cousin to Chuck Norris (Freud Junior), Monday, 9 January 2006 03:08 (twenty years ago)

Cornelius Tacitus (born A.D. 52-54), the Roman historian (who historians generaly trust to supply accurate information about Roman history) writes:

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumour, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for thier enormities. Christus, the founder of the name was put to death by Pontious Pilate, procurator of Juedea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischeif originated, but through the city of Rome also. " Tacitus, Annals XV, 44.

― Freud Junior, Third Cousin to Chuck Norris (Freud Junior), Monday, 9 January 2006 03:10 (twenty years ago)

No serious historian would doubt the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. On occasions some have tried but only by ignoring the overwhelming evidence that supports the existence of Jesus.

"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries" - Encyclopedia Britannica

― Freud Junior, Third Cousin to Chuck Norris (Freud Junior), Monday, 9 January 2006 03:13 (twenty years ago)

Christ's names was Jeshua Ben Joseph, wasn't it?

― kingfish pibb Xtra (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 9 January 2006 03:45 (twenty years ago)

in Aramaic it would have been Yeshua Ha-Nostri, right?

― Freud Junior, Third Cousin to Chuck Norris (Freud Junior), Monday, 9 January 2006 03:49 (twenty years ago)

yeah, but he only spoke greek and hebrew, right?

― kingfish pibb Xtra (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 9 January 2006 03:53 (twenty years ago)

no he spoke Aramaic

― Freud Junior, Third Cousin to Chuck Norris (Freud Junior), Monday, 9 January 2006 03:55 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.