1
   

Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

 
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 09:50 am
Lash wrote:
So, you refute this?

________________

Q: "Are there any historical writings, other than the Bible, that prove that Jesus ever really lived?"

our A: Yes. Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120) was considered the greatest historian of ancient Rome. He wrote of Nero who "punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus [Christ], the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originiated, but through the city of Rome also."1

Also, Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, (A.D. 38-100+) wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities, saying that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, that Jesus was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected.2

The existence of Jesus Christ is recorded not only by Josephus and Tacitus, but also by ancient writers such as Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian. And from the Jewish Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."3

Thus, historians both favorable and unfavorable regarding Jesus did write about him. Also there were many historical writings about the early Christians.

_____________________

You refute that he is spoken about in rather unsavory terms in some ancient Jewish writings?

_____________________

What was all that hub-bub about around 33AD?


Your source is hearsay, not proof. No one is disputing the historical evidence of Christianity. Gosh, how do you think you can fool anyone with this? Next, you will use the Bible as historical evidence.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 09:57 am
Lash source for this claptrap is everystudent.com, a Christian website whose purpose is to indoctrinate young people to believe in Christianity.

Quote:
EveryStudent.com is a safe place to explore questions about who God is and what it might be like to know God.

This site contains articles, real life video stories, Q & A's, and gives you an opportunity to email a question you might have about God. We will email you a personal response to your question. Our desire is to help you see that God is offering you a personal relationship with himself, and how you can begin to know him today.

The site is developed by a non-denominational Christian organization: Campus Crusade for Christ, International. You will find this student organization on many college campuses throughout the U.S. and the world. If you are interested in seeing a specific list of the theological beliefs of Campus Crusade for Christ, feel free to email us.

We hope that you will consider the possibility of knowing God and his love for you. There is no other relationship we can experience that so completely satisfies the longings of the human heart and mind.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 10:06 am
Nice source! I partcularly love this Q and A:

Quote:
Q: "Is premarital sex wrong? Why are all the things that are fun and exciting wrong according to you christians? Why would a God who loved say that you can not do things that are fun?"
our A: Consider this, is driving a car wrong? No. Is driving a car for an 13-year-old wrong? Yes. It's fun and exciting for the 13-year-old, but it puts his life and other lives in jeopardy.

Is sex, which is fun, between a husband and wife wrong? No. Is sex wrong if it's with someone else's spouse? Yes. It may be fun and exciting, but it often brings tremendous heartache to that person's spouse and the children involved.

We like to determine what is right and wrong, according to what we want. That's human nature. If we want to have sex with someone, we want to set our own standards. Often our standards are, if they're not married, then ok. But what if the other person is put at risk for a sexually transmitted disease? Now it gets fuzzy. What if the person is put at risk for pregnancy and faces the difficult decision of abortion? Fuzzy also. What if the person is a relative? What if the person is the same sex? What if it's sex for payment? What if it's sex for pornography? What if it involves children?

What's fun and exciting to one person may be viewed as very wrong by someone else. Is it? Where does a person determine what is right and wrong?

A loving God has made his wisdom on life known to us. He says that sin is pleasurable for the moment. There probably isn't any sin which is not at the moment pleasurable. But pleasure can't be our only standard for making decisions. Think how fun it would have been to really severely smack a younger brother or sister at times. Pleasurable for the moment, but fortunately we hold back because pleasure isn't our only guide.

God wants to keep us from horrendous problems which we can bring on ourselves by the stupid decisions we make. He genuinely loves us and wants to protect us from decisions and behavior that will ruin our lives or someone else's life.

Why does God (who created sex) restrict sex to marriage? Is it to spoil people's fun or to insure that a couple enjoys the deepest level of intimacy possible, reserved for only each other? When God gives us guidance his motives are pure and prompted by his love for us.

People get used sexually for momentary fun and excitement, but what if there is something more valuable than momentary pleasure? Like dignity, self-esteem, knowing that you're also treating that other person with greater value? Perhaps God thinks relationships can be more intimate, secure and stronger if they are built on something more substantial than sexual involvement. Whatever God's reasons, his wisdom surpasses ours and he can be trusted. And quite often we later see the value of following him.


Isn't it intellectually dishonest to use a site like this as if it is a credible source and not provide attribution?
0 Replies
 
El-Diablo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 02:57 pm
Good ole' wikipedia coems through again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 03:41 pm
I was aware of the Wikipedia article, which is not necessarily the most detailed around, but does a good job in a brief page. Lash sneers at Wikipeida (when it suits her), though, and the link i provided has the value of being from a source which cannot be characterized as either anti-christian or secular humanist. Additionally, Professor Doughtery includes one of the compelling pieces of evidence--that the passage works perfectly well with the interpolations removed.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2006 01:34 pm
Actually, ehBeth sneered at Wiki when I used it once. I thought the source was fine until ehBeth said it wasn't.

And I don't know what Chrissee #10 is on about. I never visited such a site.

I google, and I think I got my info from a university site, but I'll see. I certainly didn't read any stuff there like what he (Chrissee #10) posted.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2006 01:42 pm
That everystudent is the first site that comes up when I put in a line from the article--but that is not the site I used. I don't open myself up to defending such a site--because I don't find them credible myself.

But, I can't find it now. I should try to remember to put my sources in--eh.
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2006 02:00 pm
Courts can't get simple law right on issues that happened a few months ago so how are they going to prove that a person was around 2,000 years ago?

You could never prove it, even if Christ was real and came back today...some court would say he was an imposter...I say the priest asks the judge to prove he didn't exist, or better yet, prove he is a capable judge.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2006 03:10 pm
I say there was a man named Harvey that existed 3 million years ago with shiny blond hair and he could throw the Earth around in his little finger. Now prove he DIDN'T exist!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2006 03:38 pm
Actually, this is all more like a new, up-to-date episode of Don Camillo and Pepone.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 06:40 am
Quote:
Did Jesus exist? Case dismissed

Friday, February 10, 2006 Posted: 1647 GMT

ROME, Italy (AP) -- An Italian judge has dismissed an atheist's petition that a small-town priest should stand trial for asserting that Jesus Christ existed, both sides said on Friday.

Luigi Cascioli, a 72-year-old retired agronomist, had accused the Rev. Enrico Righi of violating two laws with the assertion, which he called a deceptive fable propagated by the Roman Catholic Church.

"The Rev. Righi is very satisfied and moved," Righi's attorney, Severo Bruno, said. "He is an old, small-town parish priest who never would have thought he'd be in the spotlight for something like this."

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.

Judge Gaetano Mautone said in his decision that prosecutors should investigate Cascioli for possible slander.

The ruling was released Thursday in Viterbo, a town north of Rome where the priest is based. Cascioli filed a criminal complaint against Righi in 2002 after Righi wrote in a parish bulletin that Jesus existed, that he was born to a couple named Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem and that he lived in Nazareth.

Righi, 76, said substantial historical evidence proves Jesus' existence.

Cascioli claimed that Righi's assertions violated two Italian laws: one barring "abuse of popular belief," or fraudulently deceiving people; and another barring "impersonation" or personal gain from attributing a false name to someone.
Source
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2006 12:43 am
NickFun wrote:
I say there was a man named Harvey that existed 3 million years ago with shiny blond hair and he could throw the Earth around in his little finger. Now prove he DIDN'T exist!


Damned freaky icon!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/03/2020 at 10:51:31