Interesting Article (I think)

[keltzkroz]

Hi everyone! I came across this article on the web and I thought its interesting. Essentially, its about a judge ordering a priest to prove in a court that Jesus Christ existed (please correct me if I'm wrong). Enjoy!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0% ... %2C00.html

[bernee51]

Hi everyone! I came across this article on the web and I thought its interesting. Essentially, its about a judge ordering a priest to prove in a court that Jesus Christ existed (please correct me if I'm wrong). Enjoy!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0% ... %2C00.html

Some would claim that this is just another example of 'christian persecution'.

Others would say - big deal - ain't it obvious that the Jesus the god story is a definite myth and the Jesus the man story is dubious at best.

I'm firmly in the second camp - though it will be interesting to follow up the story

[scorpia]

Some would claim that this is just another example of 'christian persecution'.

Others would say - big deal - ain't it obvious that the Jesus the god story is a definite myth and the Jesus the man story is dubious at best.

IMO it's neither. Someone asks for proof and that's all this is all about.

[keltzkroz]

Hi everyone! I came across this quote from Luigi Cascioli (the plaintiff). I italicized the portion that I wanted to emphasize:

"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,"

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story. ... sus_debate

Is he implying that he presented proof of a negative? If this is the case, can someone please tell me how its possible to prove a negative?

[McCulloch]

Is he implying that he presented proof of a negative? If this is the case, can someone please tell me how its possible to prove a negative?

Logically, the only way to prove that something does not exist is to prove that it cannot exist. Proving that Jesus as a historical figure could not exist is even more difficult than proving that Jesus as a historical figure really did exist. So either he is mistaken or he has attempted to show that there is a low probability that Jesus as a historical figure did not exist.

[ST88]

Is he implying that he presented proof of a negative? If this is the case, can someone please tell me how its possible to prove a negative?

Logically, the only way to prove that something does not exist is to prove that it cannot exist. Proving that Jesus as a historical figure could not exist is even more difficult than proving that Jesus as a historical figure really did exist. So either he is mistaken or he has attempted to show that there is a low probability that Jesus as a historical figure did not exist.

It's not quite his contention that the Jesus figure didn't exist. Cascioli claims that there was a Jesus figure, it's just that this figure wasn't Jesus, it was another guy who was ascribed Messiah-like qualities. That's a whole different animal from proving a negative. By framing it as a case of mistaken (or deliberately concealed) identity, Cascioli has put the burden of proof on the positive assertion that this figure was indeed the Son of God. The main evidence is -- legally -- hearsay.

I have to say that I don't think there should have been a case here. The Church is built on faith. How can you use any rational arguments against faith? Those infected will likely never recover, and even if he succeeds in disestablishing the Catholic church (in Italy) -- which he won't -- people will not cease to believe simply because of this fact.