+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/20/2018 12:05 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  6.850 Visits   5 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
01/04/2006 10:39 AM ID: 52073 Permalink   

Judge Tells Priest to Provide Proof of Christ's Existence


Father Enrico Righi, a priest who denounced the writer of The Fable of Christ in his parish newsletter, has been ordered by a judge to prove that Christ existed in order to win the case bought against him by the books author.

The author, Luigi Cascioli, maintains in his book that the only evidence for Christ's existence is through the Gospels, which Christians believed by faith. Non-biblical sources were from a time after the life of Christ and therefore unreliable.

Cascioli says that many had confused the identity of Jesus with that of John of Gamala, a first century insurgent who was anti-Jewish. Father Righi argues that there is ample historical proof on his side and he has one month to offer it to the court.

    WebReporter: Flashby Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
interesting to see how this one will play out
  by: Syoware   01/04/2006 11:51 AM     
after reading the source it sounds like this author really has it out for the priest.

"Non-biblical sources were from a time after the life of Christ and therefore unreliable."

well this would mean all old testament prophets never existed either since their lives weren't recorded till long after as well. this seems like soft reasoning if you're trying to deny the existence of someone. it may cause speculation, but it certainly doesn't prove he was invented. neither side can prove or disprove his existence. that is why you need faith to be christian.

i have no problem with atheism, but militant atheists are just as bad as militant christians in my opinion. they both bug the hell out of you and won't let you believe something which differs from their righteously enlightened point of view. of course the priest denounced the book. he's a priest. i'd like to see the vatican sue the writter for denouncing christianity.
  by: manilaryce     01/04/2006 12:13 PM     
  tell the judge to look  
in the talmud, he is mentioned there....
  by: ganjaman22     01/04/2006 12:15 PM     
  Faith = Stupidity  
Anyone who believes without a doubt that Jesus lived is an idiot. You ever played that game chinese whispers? Thousands of versions of the same story/testament translated back and forth, told by people puting their own cutural spin & perspective on it. You think maybe the story might get a little distorted? Your still an idiot, it would be totally different. Its accepted that the Romans re-wrote the new testament to merge christianity with their own religion anyway so there.
  by: lachs     01/04/2006 02:38 PM     
" Its accepted that the Romans re-wrote the new testament to merge christianity with their own religion anyway so there."

You might want to glance at The Christians as the Romans Saw Them
by Robert Louis Wilken

He looks at Christianity in the Roman Empire by looking at it through the pagan critics. He claims that by studying the pagan critics, you'll understand how the early Church shaped its theology and doctrines...not the other way around.

Suetonius, a Roman Historian from abt. 120 AD, and not a Christian wrote:

Life of Nero, Ch. 16
"Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."

hmmm... the Romans wanted to merge this with their religion?
  by: Moojoo     01/04/2006 03:03 PM     
  Roman Merging with Christinaity  
"hmmm... the Romans wanted to merge this with their religion?"

Anyone knows what year the final version of the 4 testaments was finalized?
Anyone knows when ceasar became the first pope, ie:total merge with christianity?

My understanding is Rome was getting cut down by having so many religions: some of them dark requiring sacrifices and some inciting active struggle against other religions, as such they had to pick a religion and make it the official religion of the country and they picked christianity.
  by: kmazzawi     01/04/2006 03:54 PM     
  The burden of proof  
is on the priest here. Let's see how he does.
  by: kcking05     01/04/2006 04:13 PM     
  Poor Priest  
He hasn't got a prayer...
  by: sectiod27   01/04/2006 06:43 PM     
  lachs [deleted]  
I understand that you may be a atheist or anti-christian but there is no excuse for your ignorance. You obviously do not know the history so why make a fool out of yourself by repeating something somebody told you? There is a lot of historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Whether or not he was/is the son of god as claimed is a different story.
  by: creep   01/04/2006 08:38 PM     
it's okay. there is no proof that lachs even exists. i've never seen him, so he's probably imaginary. anyone who believes in lachs existence is an idiot.
  by: manilaryce     01/04/2006 09:34 PM     
I did a search for lachs in the talmus and koran, no hits.
  by: kmazzawi     01/04/2006 10:46 PM     
" There is a lot of historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed."

I think I saw a documentary on the Discovery channel about this one time, but other than that, can you provide any of the massive amounts of evidence, or at least point me in the right direction? I actually believe he existed as a man, however I don't have any proof.
  by: kcking05     01/04/2006 11:23 PM     
  Jesus existed  
But prove Jesus was a messanger or son of god? Impossible to prove. There are many sources that refernece the profit Jesus, most of them religious (different religions), but just about all references to that time are religious. I want the judge to prove to me that the first king of england existed... we all know one did, but any physical proof of his existence would be gone by now, and any writings would be after his death.
  by: ssxxxssssss   01/04/2006 11:38 PM     
Here's the talmud translated to english... which part mentions Jesus? I looked but I wasn't able to find anything about him.

From my understanding we don't have any proof beyond the bible, except for other documents based on the bible, or vise versa. So where is this evidence?
  by: tellgar     01/05/2006 12:04 AM     
"There is a lot of historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed."

I read somewhere that Nazareth didn't exist until 200 years after Jesus' death. Anyone have a link to that or am I remembering wrong?
  by: lurker     01/05/2006 12:20 AM     
From what I've been able to look up, it exsisted long before 0-32AD... but it was considered a crappy town.
  by: tellgar     01/05/2006 12:31 AM     
  Another vague recollection  
I seem to recall that some Roman records can be said to corroborate the man's existence (specifically crucifixion records), and that even academically, the matter was mostly beyond question.
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/05/2006 12:36 AM     
I can't find anything concrete to support my memory, so I withdraw my statement about Nazareth. I know I've read it somewhere, but that doesn't mean anything.
  by: lurker     01/05/2006 01:03 AM     
  @ creep  
First Council of Nicaea:

I know the history buddy, what gave you the idea i didn't? There is so much irony in YOU telling ME i am making assumptions based on some thing some body told me, when the whole point of my post was that you can never be sure of anything you read or hear. Jesus probably did exist, but you can't prove it and thus it is not a fact. Faith is believing without evidence, kids catch on that santa doesn't exist but until then he is a real person to them. I'm sorry if it offends people here but i really think that belief without hard incontrovertable evidence is stupid. You weren't there so how are you so sure?
  by: lachs     01/05/2006 03:39 AM     
I dont know where myself, but I beielve scholers on the subject (which I saw on tv some time ago) that said both Islam and Judism (sp?) referenced the profit Jesus. Im not religious enough to be able to provide more than heresay though :).
And wouldnt the romans have records of the crucifixion? they seems to be people who loved paperwork :)
  by: ssxxxssssss   01/05/2006 03:59 AM     
I believe you exist... sort of... I think you are Margret Thatcher's alter-ego. Prove to me you are not.

The only way you can do that is if you reveal yourself in person, and even then, you could be an actor hired to decieve.

At the very base of your argument is the position that you cannot prove anyone exists - yet we know billions of people do. There is a lot of empirical evidence for people existing - but if you try and prove the existence of one person, it is never conclusive.
  by: lauriesman     01/05/2006 06:34 AM     
  how many of you non-existing people know...  
decartes never existed.
  by: manilaryce     01/05/2006 06:44 AM     
He thought therefore he wasn't
  by: lachs     01/05/2006 07:40 AM     
  Has anyone here actually researched this?  
Outside of biblical sources, of course. I mean, what was his birth name? Where would you even begin to look for this kind of information? I highly doubt his parents named him "Jesus Christ". I've also heard him referred to as "Yeshua". Where did that come from? How would one prove they were the same person? Were they? Or is there some disagreement about which individual was "Jesus"? The Heathens want answers! (Well, this one does...) We are a curious lot.

I am personally looking forward to any follow up on this case. It would definitely satisfy a tiny bit of my curiosity even if it did raise new questions in the process.
  by: morgora     01/05/2006 05:28 PM     
"I seem to recall that some Roman records can be said to corroborate the man's existence (specifically crucifixion records), and that even academically, the matter was mostly beyond question."

For the crucifixion records, I wasn't able to find anything solid... some claim we have found the records of Pontius crusifing a man named "Christus", while others say that we never found the records... others say the records were found and then lost.

Well, reguardless of if we have the records or not, the ones that say we do, all seem to agree that a man named "Christus" was done in. Of course that may be the same as saying someone named "Jose" is in prison today.
  by: tellgar     01/05/2006 08:03 PM     
  Too bad this isn't funny  
I'm military and I used to live in a house in South Dakota rented to me by an old veteran. The old man died and the house was destroyed. I applied for a job with the FBI who wanted to do a background check to include all my previous residences. Hence, the same problem arises. nNow in this case, I'm trying to gain a job. But the crux of the story becomes, what does the priest have to gain by lying? Christians aren't trying to present Christ to people for their own benefit. We can't prove that Constantine became a Christian at anytime for any reason although history supports the claim: we can't prove that followers of this so called Jesus maintained their allegiance to the death, although history supports the claim. Josephus, a fist century historian, supposedly talks of Christians...maybe he was on Crack....but history doesn't support that claim. Many of us use alot more 'faith' on a daily basis than we give faith credit for. I wish we could all receive so great a salvation but it seems that death will have the supreme job of bringing about indisputable clarity.
  by: crosimoto     01/05/2006 08:14 PM     
  Speaking of Jesus  
Living here in Arizona, we have more Mexicans than in Mexico, and I saw the funniest bumper sticker.

"I know Jesus, he mows my lawn."

And just think how you'd feel if your brother was Jesus. Talk about sibling rivialry. "Why can't you be more like your brother Jesus, he turns water into wine, cures disease and you can't even clean your room!"
  by: RunsWithScissors   01/05/2006 08:16 PM     
  Historical evidence  
The only noted historian contemporary with Christ was Josephus. He is a secular scholar and is generally accepted as the primary source of compelling verification of Christ as a historical figure. In fact he makes significant comments on the impact on the political issues in which Christ was impacting on his time in the Greek and Roman world. The priest will be able to show the evidence that Christ existed. Anything else is just a matter of faith.
  by: starmutt   01/05/2006 09:01 PM     
"what does the priest have to gain by lying? Christians aren't trying to present Christ to people for their own benefit."

Ummm... I don't know this priest, or anything about him. He may have great intentions, but to answer your question, there is one very obvious thing to gain through lying, CASH! Churches make some good money, and it's tax free. You could also view the benefit of him going to heaven once he dies because of all the christians he saved, converted, etc.

There are other reasons sure... but those are two easy ones off the top of my head.
  by: tellgar     01/05/2006 09:20 PM     
most of you are way off track but according to original article, id say the judge made a good call, you cant just bash something without a reason... good luck priest
  by: starlock   01/05/2006 09:32 PM     
Flavius Josephus was alive from 37AD to 100AD. If the dates of jesus are accurate, he was dead for 5 years when Josephus was even born.

As for his references to Jesus, that has been debated since the 17th century. People claim it could not have been written by a Jewish man, because it sounds too Christian: it even claims that Jesus was the Messiah.

There is also evidence that what he says about Jesus was so close to another early description of Jesus, that there is a fairly good chance that it wasn't by Josephus and was added to his work at a later date.
  by: tellgar     01/05/2006 09:33 PM     
...I see what you mean, thnx. True Christianity, that is not.
Which again supports the likely hood that any proof would be no proof at all because the motive to not beleive will produce enough 'reason' to deny faith.

If anyone has the time and inclination (since C.S. Lewos is kinda notable at the present) take a listen at Mere Christianity (audio of course).....or read if your so inclined.
  by: crosimoto     01/05/2006 10:01 PM     
  C.S. Lewis  
Is great :)

WRT Jesus birth name - It was the Hebrew equivalent of Jesus. Christ is his title.

Of Interest:

Early Jewish documents such as the Mishnah and even Josephus--as well as first-century Gentile historians--such as Thallus, Serapion, and Tacitus--all testify that the one called Christ lived in Palestine and died under Pontius Pilate. As the British scholar, F. F. Bruce put it, "The historicity of Christ is as [certain]. . . as the historicity of Julius Caesar" (NT Documents, 119).
  by: lauriesman     01/06/2006 04:01 AM     
  isn't he a minor prophet in the Koran too?  
  by: MmmMan     01/06/2006 04:15 AM     
  Historical Proof  
Just a brief comment on yours. I understand your position but it is generally understood in historical analysis of data that a first hand account is not required but comments by one having access to the historical record is evidence. Josephus was quoting many relavant documents of the day and providing insight to his period. He was not testifying in court. lauriesman's comments are true. The evidence given by various historians is as convincing as the evidence for any other historical person of the era. Do you believe in Caesar? The same historians comments are used for the purpose of establishing his existance.
For complete historical citations please refer to:
  by: starmutt   01/06/2006 04:32 AM     
The problem with is that it is authored by a Christian. Albeit a man with a PhD on the issue. However, if Christianity is what he whole-heartedly believes as the absolute truth, as with anything, his comments are most likely filled with bias.

So if a Christian can't write about Jesus because of personal bias and Athiests can't write about Jesus because of personal bias... then who's left?... Santa?
  by: x Mugs x   01/06/2006 07:48 AM     
I believe in Santa. There is ample evidence going back centuries in the form of first-hand accounts of him visiting ppl on Christmas Eve. Some claim to have even sat on his lap in department stores - many accounts taking place at the exact same time, leading me to belive that he is omnipotent. There are centuries-old drawings and stories telling of all the good things he did, along with his disciples (Rudolph (the 'red-nosed one'), Donner, Blitzen, etc) although no physical remains have ever been found. But he's real and several million loyal followers can't be wrong....can they??
  by: Flashby     01/06/2006 09:56 AM     
You ever heard of Rob McConnell? He hosts an international radio show called "The 'X' Zone" in which he interviews psychics, star children(??) and various other crack-pots. Anyways, he reported that in an online poll he'd conducted over 140K people voted 'YES' they believed in Santa... so you're not alone.

And though it's true that Santa's remains have ever been found (the rational explanation being that he's magical and thus immortal), his existence CANNOT be denied... because then you'd have to explain where all those bloody elves came from!!

  by: x Mugs x   01/06/2006 01:48 PM     
Actually there is very little strong evidence supporting the existence of Jesus. However there are coins and busts and other hard evidence supporting the existence of Julius.

This is a quite extensive analysis. Probably a little biased and relies mostly on debunking the gospels. However there is a section refering to jewish historians of the time. Philo and Josephus.

"Philo, one of the most renowned writers the Jewish race has produced, was born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home was in or near Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified, and to have risen from the dead. Had Jesus done these things, the writings of Philo would certainly contain some record of his life. Yet this philosopher, who must have been familiar with Herod's massacre of the innocents, and with the preaching, miracles and death of Jesus, had these things occurred; who wrote an account of the Jews, covering this period, and discussed the very questions that are said to have been near to Christ's heart, never once mentioned the name of, or any deed connected with, the reputed Savior of the world.

In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on "The Antiquities of the Jews." In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of "The Antiquities of the Jews" appeared, in which occurred this passage: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Such is the celebrated reference to Christ in Josephus. A more brazen forgery was never perpetrated. For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen an Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that that writer had not acknowledged Christ. This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is know to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage in his "Evangelical Demonstration," (Book III., p.124), in these words: "Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness."

Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room. Josephus was a Jew -- a priest of the religion of Moses. This passage makes him acknowledge the divinity, the miracles, and the resurrection of Christ -- that is to say, it makes an orthodox Jew talk like a believing Christian! Josephus could not possibly have written these words without being logically compelled to embrace Christianity. All the arguments of history and of reason unite in the conclusive proof that the passage is an unblushing forgery."
  by: jendres     01/06/2006 02:47 PM     
Hmm, do you have a link for that reference about the Mishnah? wikipedia has the following:

"There are very few historical documents from the late Second Temple era. Aside from the works by Josephus, the oldest text from that period, the Mishnah is a law code, and not a record of legal proceedings, nor a general history.

Jewish records of the period, both oral and written, were compiled into the Talmud, a collection of legal debates and stories so large that it fills over 30 volumes. There is no mention of anyone called "Jesus" (in Heb. Yehoshuah) within it, the closest match being a person (or persons) called Yeshu from the Babylonian Talmud. However, the description of Yeshu does not match the biblical accounts of Jesus, and the name itself is usually considered to be a derogatory acronym for anyone (possibly, but not necessarily, Christians) attempting to convert Jews from Judaism, standing for yemach shemo vezichro ("erased be his name and memory"). Additionally, the term does not occur in the Jerusalem version of the text, which would be expected to mention Jesus more often than the Babylonian version, rather than less.

However, the lack of references to Jesus in Talmudic writings may simply be due to Christianity being a minor, negligible organization when most of the Talmud was created, in addition to the Talmud being more concerned with teachings and law than with recording history."
  by: jendres     01/06/2006 02:57 PM     
Don't have the link to hand, but I did find this:

The Historians: Josephus

Josephus (37-100 CE) is perhaps our primary source for the history of first-century Palestine. He was born Joseph ben Matthias into a priestly Hasmonean family, but after he became a Roman citizen he adopted the emperor’s name, Flavius. Josephus spent some time with the Pharisees, Essenes and, for three years, was a disciple of an ascetic teacher name Banus (Life, 2). During the First Jewish Revolt (66-70 CE), he led an army against the Romans but in 67 CE was captured in Galilee by the Roman general Vespasian. Josephus impressed Vespasian and, when in 69 CE Vespasian became emperor, he released Josephus from prison. After Jerusalem fell in 70 CE, Josephus returned to Rome and began writing the history of the Jewish people. His two major works are The Wars of the Jews (75 CE?) and The Antiquities of the Jews (95 CE?).

Josephus is considered important by students of the New Testament because his writings focus on the socio-political events that occurred during Jesus’ life. Interestingly, Josephus writes about John the Baptist’s teachings at great length (Antiquities, 18.5.2), but tells us very little about Jesus and his ministry. In a much-contested passage of the Antiquities this is all that Josephus writes about Jesus:

Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man . . . . For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. . . . When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. . . . And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared (18.3.3).

Following Patterson, I have excluded the places that scholars agree are later Christian interpolations. Even though Josephus does not tell us much we can discern a few very important things about Josephus’ portrayal of Jesus. Jesus was a wisdom teacher. This is an especially important attestation of the Q gospel’s portrayal of Jesus. Also, Josephus is aware of the pejorative term "Christian" (messiah-followers) and refers to them as "so called" Christians because, as a Jew, Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the messiah. The Roman historians Tacitus (Annals 15.44) and Seutonius (Lives of the Caesars 6.16) use the term Christian in a pejorative sense and we learn from 1 Peter 4:14-16 that the term was used derogatorily against Jesus’ followers while they were persecuted.
  by: lauriesman     01/06/2006 10:01 PM     
  And this  
The Historians: Tacitus

Other than Josephus, the only other historian that can tell us much about the historical Jesus is Tacitus (56 CE-117 CE). In his Annals he writes:

The founder of this sect, Christus, was given the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator, Pontius Pilate; suppressed for the moment, the detestable superstition broke out again, not only in Judea where the evil originated, but also in [Rome], where everything horrible and shameful flows and grows (15.44).

Tacitus and Josephus provide good references to Jesus' crucifixion, however Tacitus is no help for telling us anything about Jesus. The quest continues.

(same link)
  by: lauriesman     01/06/2006 10:02 PM     
  nice stuff  
Tacitus is probably the best neutral source. You'll notice the quote I used which refered to the tampering with Josephus' writings put it into serious doubt. (the way it is written and the way it fits into the text, doesn't match his style.)

IMHO, I think that it is more probable that Jesus existed than he didn't. However, I also think it is more probable that his deeds have been grossly exagerated to support the fledgling religous cult (think Davidians).
  by: jendres     01/07/2006 02:24 AM     
I feel the biblical Jesus myth is just that - a myth. I don't doubt his religious convictions (love above law, inclusion, etc) but I don't believe he, the human Jesus character, did what has been passed down through the bible. I don't believe the vast majority of what anyone has been taught about Jesus even tho I'm sure an actual person was one inspiration for the myth.

Virgin births were practically required of pagan gods, triune godheads (or other entities) are yet another pagan concept and even his 'miracles' seem to be lifted from the purported deeds of pagan gods. No one finds it surprising to learn Dionysus turns water into wine, do they?

There is a whole legion of 'dying gods' who will return again during the 'end times'. My own religion is equally guilty of this with the story of Baldur - God of Love, Light and Beauty - murdered because of Loki's treachery but who will return again during Ragnarok to help save us poor mortals. It's just we know it's not literal.

If that doesn't sound familiar enough, Mithras, another pagan god who was called The Redeemer by his followers, was reported to have said "He who will not eat of my body, nor drink of my blood, so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved." And that somehow became corrupted, attributed to JC and slipped into the bible.

Personally, I am of the firm opinion that the biblical version of Jesus is a blending of various pagan gods. I am more interested in the historical dude, Jesus or whatever he was called, who started the madness. THAT is the interesting thing to me!

  by: morgora     01/07/2006 03:00 AM     
Great stuff! As an agnostic, I've always had similar ideas about christianity. It just seems obvious to me.

I like how common ideas and myths are held throughout various cultures around the world. Look at how similar dragons, vampires and ghosts are in both european and east asian culture!

I'm also a big fan of Neil Gaiman and he seems to be running with these concepts. (Anansi Boys and American Gods if anyone is interested.)
  by: jendres     01/07/2006 04:02 AM     
While it isn't conclusive, it surely points at sources and records that no longer exist. I personally think it is entirely rational to accept that Jesus existed - who he was, and what he accomplished being entirely up for debate.

Part of the problem is that Herod himself rounded up some 3000 of the most notable Jewish scholars and leaders to be executed when he died - he wanted the nation to mourn, and he knew they would not mourn him personal in the slighest.

Herod was a savage and brutal, excessive, ruthless man - murdered his own sons, his favorite wife, her brother etc etc.. Stalin had nothing on him. It is not entirely beyond reason that he would have any compunction is slaughtering 30-40 children up to two years old, just to be sure he got Jesus. Josephus doesn't record the slaughter, but he does IIRC record the rounding up and incarceration of the 3000. A nation concerned with 3000 of its leaders and scholars being put to death, isnt really going to pay much attention to the murder of 30-40 children in a little village that noone really knows about.
  by: lauriesman     01/07/2006 11:49 AM     
Mithrasism was the one of the major religions of Rome prior to Christianity. The symbol is of a young man slaughtering a bull, its blood falling on the earth, and plants growing from where it lands.

Mithrasism is a religion based on concept of the earth as the source, and life as a cycle - almost scientific. You are born from the earth, you live, and when you die, you return to the earth.

This places such a statement in an interesting context.
  by: lauriesman     01/07/2006 11:54 AM     
What about the shroud of Turin?
What about Mohammed -What did he leave behind if HE ever existed.
Yeah right!
Everybody wants to denounce Christianity.
Has anyone ever stood up and denounced Islam or don't they have the damn guts.
Everyone seems to think it's politically correct to denounce Christianity but Politically Incorrect
to denounce Islam.
So far in all my lifetime I have never met anyone with enough guts to criticize Islam.
  by: cavador   01/07/2006 02:18 PM     
Get back in your hole cavador. No-one is denouncing christianity here (Denounce: To condemn openly as being evil or reprehensible). And yes there are plenty of "christians" going around denouncing islam.
  by: jendres     01/07/2006 03:15 PM     
That’s funny! Why denounce Islam?!? Islam is not responsible for the terrorists.

It’s not like Christians are responsible for the bombings of abortion clinics or Pat Robinson or cavador.

I denounce Buddha that fat lil bastard! </sarcasm>
  by: Emp3r0r     01/07/2006 03:50 PM     
  @ Lauriesman  
That doesn't surprise me at all, really.

Many years before Jesus, there was another story told of a God man, born of a virgin mother in a stable. He travels the land with a group of followers preaching and performing miracles, including turning water into wine. He eventually catches the attention of the religous leaders of the day, allows himself to be arrested, tried, convicted and then cruicified for calling himself 'the son of god'. He rises from his tomb three days later but the women mourning him don't recognize him until he assumes his divine form.

This was, of course, Dionysus.

Willing self sacrifice and resurrection, along with visitation by the divine in human form are common themes in pagan religions. I'm sure the early christians were aware of this and knew they couldn't convert the heathen and pagan masses unless their man god was equally impressive.

Oh - Cavador, the shroud of Turin has long been known to be a hoax. An old hoax, but still long past the time of Christ and a hoax none the less.
  by: morgora     01/08/2006 03:59 PM     
  @non believers  
I was just wondering if you guys believe that there will be a day that the earth just stops spinning, or if you guys think it will just go on forever. And if you think it is going to end, how? (leave the immature 'REPUBS WILL KILL US ALL' crap. Be sereious.)
  by: digital_darkness   01/09/2006 05:36 PM     
... we have a couple of billion years before the sun goes super-nova. Until then, evolve, relax, and try to avoid fatty foods.
  by: theironboard     01/09/2006 05:52 PM     
That's his name... I always forget Dionysus' name.

On a side note, there was another one, a man who people claimed died, saw the body, but somehow he has come back alive. Some speculate that he faked his death, others that he is dead, and still others claim to still see him to this day. There are even many claims on how he died.

Elvis didn't do no drugs.
  by: tellgar     01/09/2006 06:14 PM     
Elvis didn't die he just went home.

Ever see Soylent Green?
  by: Emp3r0r     01/09/2006 08:07 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: