This case was brought to light on another BB. Here's the link:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1967413,00.html#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=World 

The question is really not different from the question, "Does God exist?” Without faith any answer to questions like these are irrelevant. JM2C

uh-oh . . . here we go again . . .

I'd rather be arguing the merits of marijuana . . . LoL ! ! !

The 2 questions are nowhere near the same. "God" is a spiritual being, for lack of a better word. "Jesus" is thought to have actually been a real historical figure, living on Earth.

I Guarentee you that this thread will end with name calling and profanity . . .

jetblasted you're a blaster of jets. ha

He was a good outfielder, as were his brothers Matty and Felipe.

Did Jesus exist, and does god exist, are related, yet distinct questions.

Does god exist? is a completely transcendental question, and is beyond proof or experiences as legitimate proof. God may or may not exist, and you may believe or not believe god exists, but neither side can put forward any conclusive empirical proof.

As for Jesus, let's take Socrates, by way of example. Three possible contemporaries of Socrates wrote about him: Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes. Therefore, based on direct testimony from three sources we can reasonably say Socrates probably existed.

Jesus is more problematic. Most of what we know about Jesus is from scripture, written by Saul of Tarsus, or, St. Paul, who never knew Jesus, and wrote after his reported death. Other sources, such as Josephus, write about Jesus, but after the fact of Jesus' reported death, and based on secondary sources. So the existence of Jesus has more evidence than the existence of god, but less proof than the existence of Socrates.

All of this is well covered territory by historical scholars. Does god exist? Have to wait till the afterlife to find out. Did Socrates exist? It is likely. Did Jesus exist? It is legitimately debatable.

Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes are known liars.

As does everyone, excepting one mutant member of Cbid.

The point is that those three Greeks are primary sources to possibly hang one's hat on regarding Socrates.

Whereas Jesus boasts only secondary and tertiary sources.

While the big Kahuna defies any known means of sourcing at all. One might as well claim blue monkeys are flying out of ... oh right, the cold war's in effect.

“abuse of popular credulity” and “impersonation”

those are the charges against the priest. not sure what the priest did to be charged with that and don't know italian law.

the legal issue is more interesting to me than the historical existence of Jesus. And the fact that the judge wants the priest to prove Jesus' existence as his defense is interesting.

Pepperhill, you are on my list. Best behave.

Beat

Matty was the better hitter of the trio.....their cousin Rico Carty was also a good hitter!

Charlie

where the hell did I leave my ten foot pole ?......oh wait.........ummmmmm......nevermind.

Not only Paul wrote about Jesus. What about His contemporaries . . . such as Matthew, Mark, Luke & John? Walked, talked, ate and worked with Him during His earthly ministry. If you cite Paul, you cannot leave out these other writers of New Testament Books.

tuck

not to get into this kinda thing with you, but i think you missed his point

he was saying that perhaps Paul was not a good source of Jesus historicity because it IS scripture although he never met the historical Jesus (save the Jesus is alive stuff...you know what i mean)

and no, i don't think jesus was a myth

In no way was I trying to stir up any trouble. I, for one, think that it will be very interesting to see how this whole thing plays out.

Tucks, that is a tangential assertion at best.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are books which did not carry the names of their actual authors, these names were given long after these four books were written.

Even though some books of the Bible are traditionally attributed to one author, many are the work of more than one author. For example, the gospels of St. John are of multiple authorship.

In another example, from the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1488, "Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark."

The point is the existing proofs of direct proof by Jesus' contemporaries is dubious. If any direct proof were known among historical scholars it would be shouted from the roof tops. Do a little homework and be secure in your faith, because that's as close as you're going to come to undisputable empirical proof of Jesus.

Faith is good. Facts are good too. Just be careful not to confuse the two.

Well said, but wrong. Very few actual scholars doubt Luke, a physician and contemporary of the Lord, wrote the book that has come to be known as The Gospel of Luke. The others may be in dispute in some camps, not in mine. Do a little homework.

Very good Tuck.............but Luke's Gospel is a summary of other people's accounts.........Luke never met Jesus.