wordy

Is it not unfortunate that he has this "John of Gamala, the son of Judas from Gamala." as the suggested historical person that the myth is based on.

What evidence support that claim. I've read a book some 30 years ago that at least three other persons was as liely as John of Gamala, to have been the model.

Toto

opening arguments began last Friday.

Alf

What about presidents?

Alf

sharrock

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4653200.stm

Gabe the Angel

Report of the hearing kept at the Court of Viterbo on the 27th of January 2006.

The parish priest Don Enrico Righi was absent, as foreseen.
Mr. Cascioli’s attorney at law, lawyer Mauro Fonzo, has spoken first. In his public speech he has brought in, as support to demonstrate the foundation of the accusations brought forward in the denunciation, many examples of exegetists that deny the historical figure of Jesus, placing among them also others of Christian faith and believers, such as Renan.
Attorney Severo Bruno, instead, ignoring all reasons concerning the existence of Christ, has diverted the main subject of the accusation, saying that the blame of a possible historical forgery is not to be put on Don Righi but on those who have sustained it before him.
In other words, he meant to say that «In case it came out that Christ had really never existed, the blame is to be put on the authors of the Sacred Texts, and not on don Righi, who only limited to repeat what others have written>>, as if who is selling poison is no responsible for the consequences he produces is the formula has been invented by others.
It is in this form of defence, aiming to unload on now no more existing persons – and therefore not prosecutable by the law – that the Church demonstrates all her weakness, knowing that she will never be able to prove the historical existence of Christ, her only aim is now to find every pretext, even the vilest, to make the sue fall, and that, instead, if it were to go on, the church knows only too well that it could end up with a sentence that would mark her definite end.
After having heard the two parts, Mr. Judge Gaetano Mantone has reserved to decide.
Which of the two sides will he take into consideration?
With respect to the judicial proceedings, two are the versions that the judge can follow before getting to a sentence:
1) basing on a personal competence on the matter (Christology in this case);
or, on the contrary:
2) to name a technical adviser (CTU in Italy), officially appointed by the judge himself, representing in this case an expert in Sacred Texts, that would decide if the proofs brought in the suit are to be rejected or be considered valid to give rise to a trial.
Will tha law be respected?
Knowing the motives adduced in order to justify the closing the previous proceedings, what other could be supposed if not the repeating abuses, if there wasn’t a faint hope that things might change for the fact that this sentence will not remain in the restricted area of a small country village, characterized by a factiously provincial rag-paper, but will go far and about the world over?
And of this the court of Viterbo must keep well in mind, if they don’t want to jeopardize the honour of a century old lay independent nation (at least for what concerns justice), as has already done the national Press with its silence about this trial, that has shown how Italy is reduced to a feud of the Vatican.

Luigi Cascioli.

Translated from Italian into English by Enrico LaganÃ*, Pietra Ligure, Italia.

S.C.Carlson

Reuters has the latest development in this trial:

Kosh

Ah, a heretic!

"Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!".

Diogenes the Cynic

Also from Stephen's linked story:
Now THAT would be an awesome trial. :devil3:

S.C.Carlson

It would, and now I know why it won't happen.

Clarice O'C

----- Original Message -----
From: Luigi Cascioli
To: Clarice
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 7:11 AM
Subject: Lawsuit at Jesus


PIOUS FRAUD


Dear Sir/Madam,

The Weekend Argus (28 January 2006) provides coverage of a fascinating development in the clash between reason and religious belief. It is an argument that can be traced to the dawn of the period known as the Enlightenment and essentially represents the ideas of science and philosophy that arose to challenge previously unquestioned religious dogma and the authority of the Christian church in 18th century Europe.

Cascioli, however, takes the issue to a new level by bringing criminal charges of “impersonation� and “abuse of popular belief� against Father Enrico Righi and by direct association, the Roman Catholic Church. Cascioli poses a simple question: If Jesus exists then the onus is upon the church to provide tangible evidence to this effect. It’s a question that secular individuals have put to the church for two thousand years and it remains unanswered – presumably because the evidence does not exist.

The standard response of the church to this question (that it is clearly unable to answer) invariably consists of remaining aloof and avoiding the issue. This is entirely understandable as reason and belief exist in separate orbits and the engagement of the former negates the development of the latter. “Show me proof�, says the reasoning person. “There is none – therefore you must believe�, responds the religious devotee. It’s a circular debate that has no promise of conclusion and drags on interminably amidst swirling clouds of incomprehensible gobbledegook espoused, in sheer contradiction to anything that might remotely be associated with logic, by fervent adherents of what is, in all its essential characteristics, nothing more or less than an oversized cult that draws breathe in the first instance because it is founded upon a mesmerizing cocktail of mysticism, miracle, ritual, paranormal phenomena and prophecy – that has a nasty and dangerous habit of being self-fulfilling.

Cascioli, in a stroke of genius, forces the reluctant hand of church and demands accountability of an institution that has shaped the way people live and think for two millennia. Notwithstanding which, and despite the apparently impossible task that faces the church, it would seem naïve to believe that one person could derail a juggernaut as wealthy and powerful as the Roman Catholic Church.

According to Cascioli’s web site ( luigicascioli.it/home_eng.php ) the defendant, parish priest Don Enrico Righi, was absent from court on 27th January. No surprises here! Cascioli’s attorney presented evidence in support of the plaintiff’s contention that Jesus did not exist as an historical figure as described in the Scriptures; in response to which, Cascioli says, “Attorney Severo Bruno, ignoring all reasons concerning the existence of Christ, has diverted the main subject of the accusation, saying that the blame of possible historical forgery is not to be put on Don Righi but on those who have sustained it before him. In other words, he meant to say that – in case it came out that Christ had really never existed, the blame is to be put on the authors of the Sacred Texts, and not on Don Righi, who was limited to repeat what others have written – as if who is selling the poison is not responsible for the consequences he produces if the formula has been invented by others�. Aside from the fact that the authors of the Scriptures are long dead, they also remain anonymous and “not prosecutable by law�. Cascioli concedes that it would take “a miracle� for his case to succeed and the next hearing has been set for 29th April 2006.

Whatever the outcome of this case, important precedents are being set and the tenets of institutionalised religion are being tested, for the first time, in a human court of law. Enlightenment thinker and author of The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, says it thus, “Upon the whole, mystery, miracle and prophecy are appendages that belong to the fabulous and not to true religion. They are the means by which so many Lo, heres! and Lo, theres! have been spread about the world, and religion made into a trade. The success of one imposter gave encouragement to another, and the quieting salvo of doing some good by keeping up a pious fraud protected them from remorse�.

Pious fraud? Paine’s critique of Christianity remains as incisive and as relevant today as it was in 1794. Cascioli’s case echoes Paine’s analysis. Unlike the evidence pertaining to the existence of God, the evidence concerning the true nature of the church is voluminous and irrefutable. The Spanish Requerimiento ushered in the single greatest human and environmental tragedy the world has ever witnessed. This is how it began: The Requerimiento, read in Spanish to uncomprehending Indians was a church-sanctioned prelude to violent conquest: “We ask and require you…to acknowledge the Church as the ruler and superior of the whole word, and the high priest called the Pope and in his name the King (of Spain) as lords of…this terra firm…(If you submit), we…shall receive you in all love and charity, and shall leave you, your wives and children, and your lands, free without servitude…But if you do not (submit)…we shall powerfully enter into your country, and shall make war against you…We shall take you, and your wives, and your children, and shall make slaves of them…and we shall take away your goods and shall do you all the harm and damage we can�.

The Requerimiento provides a glimmer of the true face behind the veil, and it is to be hoped that Cascioli’s initiative gains momentum and results in similar charges being brought by individuals and groups alike. And, if the church is guilty of fraud, then one would assume it is also liable for damages. As far as the victims of the Requerimiento are concerned it seems reasonable to envisage that such damages and restitution might be assessed in much the same way as that applied to victims of Nazi persecution. Furthermore, I believe every person on the planet has a valid case against the truly repulsive, divisive, demeaning and harmful concept of “original sin�. Class action?

Yours faithfully
Doubting Thomas.



If you want to be removed from this mailing list, please reply.