Boro Nut

In the case of Regina versus Jesus would the court please be upstanding.

Be seated.

Mi’Lud, may I first bring to your attention exhibit A of the evidence, which forms the central pillar of my clients case.

Has Council for the Prosecution agreed to this submission?

I have Mi’Lud. Happily it also forms the central pillar of the prosecution case.

Let the record show exhibit A is entered into the body of evidence.

Mi’Lud, the document before you contains the sworn affidavits of numerous witnesses attesting to the facts of this matter, as can be seen in the section marked ‘New Testament’.

And what’s this big bit at the front?

That Mi’Lud is the Old Testament.

Does this also have relevance to this case?

It does Mi’Lud. It establishes that the credentials of my client are beyond reproach, and needs to be understood to explain the nature of my client in the context of the New Testament statements pertaining to the facts in dispute.

What are these New Testaments?

They are submissions of the facts of the case by a Mathew, Mark, John and… erm, I have it written here.. yes, a Luke Mi’Lud.

If it please Mi’Lud, with your permission, may I interject at this point to clarify to the court that my colleagues at the Crown Prosecution Service and also the investigating officers of the local constabulary have as yet been unable to confirm the places of residence, occupations or identifies of any of the said witnesses, or indeed of the accused himself, prior to this matter being presented before you.

Does Counsel for the Defense agree with the Learned Counsel’s submission?

We do Mi’Lud.

Will both Learned Counsels please approach the bench. Usher, please ask the jury to retire.

Would Counsel for the Defense please clarify to the court the identity of his client.

If it please Mi’Lud, it is our submission that my client is Jesus, AKA Christ, AKA The Nazarine, AKA Emanuel, AKA Messiah, AKA Lord Saviour, AKA Spotty John, AKA The Anointed One, to whit, and not to put too fine a point on it, The Son of God.

And your sole evidence is the testimony of the said witnesses?

Yes Mi’Lud

Do either you or your client know who these witnesses are?

No Mi’Lud. Defence Counsel have been unable to establish their identities, only to agree with my Learned Friend for the Prosecution that they are not actually the aforementioned Mathew, Mark, John or… erm, Luke. Unfortunately, neither can my client confirm their identities at this time, as he is otherwise indisposed, having been resurrected to heaven due to entirely foreseen circumstances.

But you do submit that they are each reliable witnesses to the statements made by your client?

Yes Mi’Lud, in the sense that someone must by definition have told them what my client said, but they disagree about what was said or what actually happened.

Who told them?

No one knows Mi’Lud.

But it is still your submission, is it not, that they were material witnesses to these statements and events?

Yes Mi’Lud, but only in the sense that they weren’t there, but were reliably informed by someone who in all likelihood may not have been there either.

I see. And you find this acceptable to put before the court?

Normally I would agree that it is a bit thin on this point Mi’Lud. But we submit that as the testimony is supported by the other witnesses, even though they disagree, as these witnesses are quoted in no lesser organ than the New Testament itself, this adds a certain gravitas to their statements, and may be accepted as gospel, so to speak.

Even though they disagree with each other on the material details of the case?

Yes Mi'Lud

And what does your client say on the matter of this Old Testament?

He begs to inform the court by means of the New Testament witnesses that it is an irrelevance, and doesn’t count anymore. Only the statements made by him in the New Testament are relevant anymore.

But didn’t you say your client relies on it to confirm his authority?

That is correct Mi’Lud.

I see. In the Prosecution’s summary they mention that certain allegations of local disturbances of a meteorological and tectonic nature have been made by these witnesses, relating to the time in question.

That is correct Mi’Lud. And this reinforces the veracity of the witness statements, as they simply could not possibly have known about them if they weren’t there.

But they weren’t there didn’t you say?

Yes.

Yes they were?

No Mi'lud. I did say Yes they weren’t, although our position may also be that no they were.

Are there any contemporary records then, to support these accounts? I note mention of the Romans being in the vicinity for instance. They were justifiably renowned for keeping accurate records. I can accept that reports of a thunderstorm may not have been kept or have survived, but shouldn’t we expect to have a report of the earthquake?

No Mi’Lud. From the large body of minutia which survives, and which records in great detail the day to day running a Roman occupied state, we can safely conclude that they were so busy committing trivia to posterity that they simply did not have the time to record the catastrophe.

What of this mention your client is said to have made of the end of the world? Have you any knowledge of this?

I have no personal knowledge of it Mi’Lud, but if it please the court, I would like to add in mitigation that I have recently moved house, so don’t get out that much at the moment.

I see. And the Old Testament, it also contains statements of global catastrophes does it not? A flood for instance, and an occasion when the world stopped rotating. What reports do we have for these?

Ah. In fact Mi’Lud, it is the very absence of any reports that lends veracity to them. I am sure Learned Counsel for the Prosecution would agree that any document purporting to have survived a global flood would clearly be a patent forgery.

And what of the earth stopping spinning?

The inkpots all fell over.

I see. Would I be right in thinking Counsel for the Defence is wasting my fucking time with this one?

It would appear so Mi’Lud

I think I’ve heard quite enough. The Court finds for the Crown in the sum of 15 shillings and seven pence. Usher, could you release the jury, they won’t be needed.

With the court’s permission, may I ask whether Mi’Lud would grant my client leave to appeal?

Yes you may ask.

May we appeal?

No

Court rise!

Toto

:notworthy

Asha'man

:notworthy

fried beef sandwich

Boro Nut is my hero.

Kosh

"They are not yet ready" - Ambasador Kosh

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

aikido7

My hat is off to you, Boro. Your post is clever and entertaining. And also didactic. And also just plain funny!

There is nothing like throwing a bit of fundamentalism right back in a fundie's face. And you have put that picture in the perfect frame.

I urge you to submit the post somewhere for a tidy sum--perhaps 30 pieces of silver? No, seriously, this should be seen by more people than are on this site....

Amlodhi

The equal of any Monty Python tagline.

Delicious!

Thanks Boro Nut.

Amlodhi

Godless Wonder

That was awesome. :notworthy:

Mr. Bird

:notworthy

Most excellent Boro Nut!

Thugpreacha

I don't see what all the acolades are about! Thats like the bacteria in my shoe putting me on trial for using Odor Eaters!