This is a joke, right? I mean, a judge isn't really asking someone to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God, right? I mean, most judges know full well that there is no possible way this could be proven (or disproven?), right? What exactly is hoped to be accomplished at trial?
The matter is complicated by the fact that the Father has no human body. One could still use the communion wine for the test, but we would need to develop a reliable ousia test in order to verify that Christ is in fact homoousias with the Father. Of course, this presupposes the orthodox Chalcedonian theory of the incarnation as well as the theology of the enhypostaton which, though never formally affirmed in a council, is presumptively orthodox (by exclusion of alternate theories).
Under certain theories of the incarnation, particularly adoptionism (whereby Christ was "adopted" as Son of God rather than being "ontologically" Son of God from the beginning), even an ousia test would lead to an impasse, given the paucity of contemporary evidence aside from the Eucharistic elements -- one would only have the already questionable evidence present in the gospel accounts themselves, where it is not altogether clear where God "adopts" Christ, if at all (even more problematic is the Psalm that says "you are my son, today I have adopted you" -- since it was written hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, it likely could not be admitted as evidence in a court of law).
Hence, the defense has its work cut out for it, but I think this is winnable.
Shit, I just remember that the Psalm says "today I have begotten you." We'd better just hope that the judge allows the defense to take orthodox Christology as a given (i.e., if there is a "Son of God," this is what it means), which makes sense given that it is specifically the Catholic Church whose assertions about Christ are at issue.
I've heard that the there's going to be an intervention in this case by someone who has found Jesus' real father. God will still be God for Italian purposes, but Jesus will be SOL.
Adam, are you up on the historical evidence for a there at least being a Jesus of Nazareth? Will this be a difficult or relatively easy part of the burden?
Aside from the documents in the Bible, the only contemporary mention of Jesus is when Josephus, the Jewish historian, mentions that James "the brother of Jesus" was executed. The passage is heavily interpolated with things that Josephus wouldn't have really said (such as that Jesus is the messiah), but most scholars seem to think that just the bare reference to Jesus was in the original. (I think there's another source as well, but I can't remember what it is -- but same kind of thing, very minimal.)
The biblical accounts are unreliable in that none of them are (probably) eye-witness accounts. The earliest materials in there are the letters of Paul, who never met Jesus in person. If any of the gospels is an eye-witness account, they were written at least twenty years after Jesus's death in any case.
Itenerant preachers in a backwoods part of the Roman empire don't leave a lot of documentation behind. I tend to think that Josephus is enough to verify that there really was a guy named Jesus of Nazareth who was the intended referent of the New Testament documents, but I can understand people who would have a higher burden of proof.
The biblical accounts are unreliable in that none of them are (probably) eye-witness accounts. The earliest materials in there are the letters of Paul, who never met Jesus in person. If any of the gospels is an eye-witness account, they were written at least twenty years after Jesus's death in any case.
A couple billion people believe in a fantastic (in the sense of "consisting of fantasies," not "wonderful") 2,000 year old book relating multiple hearsay accounts by unknown authors that are completely inconsistent with normal human experience, common sense, and often the laws of nature. Believers who are not completely devoid of reason will admit that, yes, much of the book's contents are untrue -- yet they believe in the remainder, despite the absence of any evidence beyond the book itself. Amazing.
15: I suspect most "believers who are not completely devoid of reason" view the Bible as more abstract art than photography, IYKWIM. Kinda renders the level of strict historical accuracy beside the point.
Oh, wait, Dan Brown's the author of The Da Vinci Code, yeah? So it must be reminiscent of his writing, but unpolished. I haven't read the book, though...
This should be pretty simple, right? Subpoena God and make him show up in court; if he doesn't, arrest him for obstruction of justice. Easy peasy.
The problem, of course, is once you get him on the stand there's no telling that he'll tell the truth. He gets to swear an oath to himself, after all, so he can presumably lie under oath without actually breaking that oath. As a plus, since all moral law stems from God, he can make up anything he wants without actually committing an immoral act. Damn you, God!
This is a joke, right? I mean, a judge isn't really asking someone to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God, right?
You are missing the key fact. He has to give reasonable proof that Jesus, son of a god or not, actually existed as claimed by Christians. The fact of the matter is, there IS no historical proof, nor even solid historical evidence, that the guy ever existed. There is equally no evidence, whatsoever, that anyone contemporary with the currently-christian-accepted ideal of Jesus, knew of such a person, or knew of Mary and Joseph, or knew of any miracles, or knew of any Pontius Pilate condemning a guy named Jesus (While letting a known murderer of Romans go scot free! That is impossible given the historical evidence of what sort of ruler Pilate was: a typically brutal Roman prelate and they do NOT let murderers of Romans go free under any circumstance). It is not until some 40 years AFTER the supposed time of Jesus' assumed crucifixion that anyone wrote ANYTHING about anyone called Jesus and they left out all the Mary, miracles, etc, stuff. For 40 years after the assumed time of the crucifixion (~33 AD) no one knew or spoke of any of the supposed incidents of Jesus' life, let alone Jesus himself...except for Peter, who only had a vision of Jesus and ONLY spoke or knew of a crucifixion (common punishment AND a common component of various god lives including Mithras, Baal, Dionysus, and about a dozen of other contemporaneous AND previous gods - all born of a virgin human, etc. All you need to do is substitute names and time periods and the same general story with ALL the primary points comes out) and resurrection, but did not believe or claim that this Jesus had EVER lived on earth, but instead existed in some mythical/mystical realm the entire time.
This priest has a big problem. There is no good historical evidence for the existence of a Jesus, let alone one that affected so many people as the bible claims with miracles, etc. He WILL be able to find mutually conflicting stories of a Jesus-like character that lived and was killed, with all the standard god-story accoutrements of human mother, god father, miracles, rejection, murder/crucifixion, and resurrection, alternatively around 100-120 BC, just before 1 BC, or (the currently believed version) around 33 AD...and the stories are folklore with absolutely NO documentary evidence, and they DID keep documents.
It's clear that this will all be settled when the priest's defense attorney orders all the bags of mail addressed to "Jesus" to be brought into the courtroom.
Most scholars actually think that Paul began writing in the late 40s or early 50s, and when he had his vision, there was already a sufficiently large movement that he could easily find it and join it (or, before the vision, find it and persecute it), presumably including some people who knew Jesus in person, such as his brother James, mentioned in Josephus.
I find the idea that there is nothing distinctive about the Jesus story and that these kinds of stories directly transpose themselves into every culture to be pretty implausible -- would this be a genetic thing, or what? Does it extend to China and Africa, or do these exact same stories only crop up among members of the Indo-Aryan and Semitic language groups?
Whatever happened with that thing (I can't remember the word, engraved funeral box)? First it was "OMG, contemporaneous evidence of the existence of a James, brother of Jesus," and then it was "OMG, it is so forged," but I thought I might have seen something indicating that it was maybe not definitely forged.
My reading has left me convinced that while an actual Jesus did exist, the historical Jesus is almost certainly an amalgamation of several contemporaneous, itinerant, Davidic teachers.
Apostropher, The term "historical Jesus" is usually used to refer to the "real" Jesus as distinct from the Jesus people believe in -- so are you arguing that the "real" Jesus is some kind of monstrous medical experiment, combining the body parts of various Davidic preachers to create a first-century Frankenstein?
What exactly is hoped to be accomplished at trial?
The next thing would be to shut down the vatican and nationalize the art, the libraries and the secret pron collection, which I am sure is unmatched, having been assembled over centuries. I'm going to hell now.
"Dinosaurs were lizards. Lizards never stop growing. That's why old alligators and crocodiles can grow to 25 feet or more. If they lived longer, they would grow even bigger. Before the flood, life lasted longer. Men lived to be 400 to 900 years old. I am sure you don't wish to embrace that thought, but if you embrace God, you embrace His word, and He does not lie. The climate changed after the flood. The earth itself burst open and poured forth floodwaters. The rift probably split the continents asunder, created the mountains, and even tilted the earth off an even 0-degree axis to a 23-degree angle to its orbit. Seasons were born, and winter is hostile to lizards. Thus the dinosaurs died out."
I don't know how things work over in Italy, but if it's a jury trial, the priest is going to win, and we'll never hear the end of it.
Jury trials are primarily an Anglo-American thing. In the British newspaper The Guardian, Andrew Geddes wrote of Great Britain:
We are almost alone in Europe in our use of juries. . . . Italy puts its trust in a tribunal of three judges
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01- 8-06 1:19 AM
Anyone have a reference for what the charge "substitution of persons" means? Sounds kinda intriguing.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 8-06 5:47 AM
I'm Jesus of Nazereth!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 8-06 9:39 AM
I'm Jesus of Nazereth!
Why not? At least you have the advantage (I assume) of actually existing.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01- 8-06 9:42 AM
But, Michael, are you Jesus of Nazareth?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 8-06 9:50 AM
I am Jesus of נָצְרַת
Don't correct divinity, Ben.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 8-06 9:56 AM
This is a joke, right? I mean, a judge isn't really asking someone to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God, right? I mean, most judges know full well that there is no possible way this could be proven (or disproven?), right? What exactly is hoped to be accomplished at trial?
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 01- 8-06 1:04 PM
DNA test, maybe? Run a blood test on some communion wine, and then once you can get God the Father to show up with a blood sample, you're all set.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 8-06 1:10 PM
I'm glad that this vexed question will finally be settled, at least for Italian purposes.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 8-06 2:03 PM
The matter is complicated by the fact that the Father has no human body. One could still use the communion wine for the test, but we would need to develop a reliable ousia test in order to verify that Christ is in fact homoousias with the Father. Of course, this presupposes the orthodox Chalcedonian theory of the incarnation as well as the theology of the enhypostaton which, though never formally affirmed in a council, is presumptively orthodox (by exclusion of alternate theories).
Under certain theories of the incarnation, particularly adoptionism (whereby Christ was "adopted" as Son of God rather than being "ontologically" Son of God from the beginning), even an ousia test would lead to an impasse, given the paucity of contemporary evidence aside from the Eucharistic elements -- one would only have the already questionable evidence present in the gospel accounts themselves, where it is not altogether clear where God "adopts" Christ, if at all (even more problematic is the Psalm that says "you are my son, today I have adopted you" -- since it was written hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, it likely could not be admitted as evidence in a court of law).
Hence, the defense has its work cut out for it, but I think this is winnable.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01- 8-06 2:25 PM
Shit, I just remember that the Psalm says "today I have begotten you." We'd better just hope that the judge allows the defense to take orthodox Christology as a given (i.e., if there is a "Son of God," this is what it means), which makes sense given that it is specifically the Catholic Church whose assertions about Christ are at issue.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01- 8-06 2:28 PM
I've heard that the there's going to be an intervention in this case by someone who has found Jesus' real father. God will still be God for Italian purposes, but Jesus will be SOL.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 8-06 2:57 PM
Adam, are you up on the historical evidence for a there at least being a Jesus of Nazareth? Will this be a difficult or relatively easy part of the burden?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 8-06 3:29 PM
Aside from the documents in the Bible, the only contemporary mention of Jesus is when Josephus, the Jewish historian, mentions that James "the brother of Jesus" was executed. The passage is heavily interpolated with things that Josephus wouldn't have really said (such as that Jesus is the messiah), but most scholars seem to think that just the bare reference to Jesus was in the original. (I think there's another source as well, but I can't remember what it is -- but same kind of thing, very minimal.)
The biblical accounts are unreliable in that none of them are (probably) eye-witness accounts. The earliest materials in there are the letters of Paul, who never met Jesus in person. If any of the gospels is an eye-witness account, they were written at least twenty years after Jesus's death in any case.
Itenerant preachers in a backwoods part of the Roman empire don't leave a lot of documentation behind. I tend to think that Josephus is enough to verify that there really was a guy named Jesus of Nazareth who was the intended referent of the New Testament documents, but I can understand people who would have a higher burden of proof.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01- 8-06 4:25 PM
The biblical accounts are unreliable in that none of them are (probably) eye-witness accounts. The earliest materials in there are the letters of Paul, who never met Jesus in person. If any of the gospels is an eye-witness account, they were written at least twenty years after Jesus's death in any case.
A couple billion people believe in a fantastic (in the sense of "consisting of fantasies," not "wonderful") 2,000 year old book relating multiple hearsay accounts by unknown authors that are completely inconsistent with normal human experience, common sense, and often the laws of nature. Believers who are not completely devoid of reason will admit that, yes, much of the book's contents are untrue -- yet they believe in the remainder, despite the absence of any evidence beyond the book itself. Amazing.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01- 8-06 10:27 PM
15: I suspect most "believers who are not completely devoid of reason" view the Bible as more abstract art than photography, IYKWIM. Kinda renders the level of strict historical accuracy beside the point.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 8-06 10:32 PM
From the linked article, what is " first-draft-Dan-Brown"? I assume it's Cockney rhyming slang, but for what?
Posted by Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 01- 8-06 10:55 PM
I didn't get that either, and google's not helping.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 8-06 10:59 PM
Oh, wait, Dan Brown's the author of The Da Vinci Code, yeah? So it must be reminiscent of his writing, but unpolished. I haven't read the book, though...
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 8-06 11:00 PM
This should be pretty simple, right? Subpoena God and make him show up in court; if he doesn't, arrest him for obstruction of justice. Easy peasy.
The problem, of course, is once you get him on the stand there's no telling that he'll tell the truth. He gets to swear an oath to himself, after all, so he can presumably lie under oath without actually breaking that oath. As a plus, since all moral law stems from God, he can make up anything he wants without actually committing an immoral act. Damn you, God!
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 01- 8-06 11:46 PM
There probably was a historical Jesus. He didn't think he was God. That was something Paul came up with later.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 12:40 AM
This is a joke, right? I mean, a judge isn't really asking someone to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God, right?
You are missing the key fact. He has to give reasonable proof that Jesus, son of a god or not, actually existed as claimed by Christians. The fact of the matter is, there IS no historical proof, nor even solid historical evidence, that the guy ever existed. There is equally no evidence, whatsoever, that anyone contemporary with the currently-christian-accepted ideal of Jesus, knew of such a person, or knew of Mary and Joseph, or knew of any miracles, or knew of any Pontius Pilate condemning a guy named Jesus (While letting a known murderer of Romans go scot free! That is impossible given the historical evidence of what sort of ruler Pilate was: a typically brutal Roman prelate and they do NOT let murderers of Romans go free under any circumstance). It is not until some 40 years AFTER the supposed time of Jesus' assumed crucifixion that anyone wrote ANYTHING about anyone called Jesus and they left out all the Mary, miracles, etc, stuff. For 40 years after the assumed time of the crucifixion (~33 AD) no one knew or spoke of any of the supposed incidents of Jesus' life, let alone Jesus himself...except for Peter, who only had a vision of Jesus and ONLY spoke or knew of a crucifixion (common punishment AND a common component of various god lives including Mithras, Baal, Dionysus, and about a dozen of other contemporaneous AND previous gods - all born of a virgin human, etc. All you need to do is substitute names and time periods and the same general story with ALL the primary points comes out) and resurrection, but did not believe or claim that this Jesus had EVER lived on earth, but instead existed in some mythical/mystical realm the entire time.
This priest has a big problem. There is no good historical evidence for the existence of a Jesus, let alone one that affected so many people as the bible claims with miracles, etc. He WILL be able to find mutually conflicting stories of a Jesus-like character that lived and was killed, with all the standard god-story accoutrements of human mother, god father, miracles, rejection, murder/crucifixion, and resurrection, alternatively around 100-120 BC, just before 1 BC, or (the currently believed version) around 33 AD...and the stories are folklore with absolutely NO documentary evidence, and they DID keep documents.
Posted by Praedor Atrebates | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 7:42 AM
no one knew or spoke of any of the supposed incidents of Jesus' life, let alone Jesus himself...except for Peter
Oops. I meant Paul, not Peter. My bad.
Posted by Praedor Atrebates | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 7:43 AM
It's clear that this will all be settled when the priest's defense attorney orders all the bags of mail addressed to "Jesus" to be brought into the courtroom.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 8:04 AM
Speaking of legal developments, we're all going to jail.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 8:19 AM
Most scholars actually think that Paul began writing in the late 40s or early 50s, and when he had his vision, there was already a sufficiently large movement that he could easily find it and join it (or, before the vision, find it and persecute it), presumably including some people who knew Jesus in person, such as his brother James, mentioned in Josephus.
I find the idea that there is nothing distinctive about the Jesus story and that these kinds of stories directly transpose themselves into every culture to be pretty implausible -- would this be a genetic thing, or what? Does it extend to China and Africa, or do these exact same stories only crop up among members of the Indo-Aryan and Semitic language groups?
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 8:24 AM
Becks -- looks like I'm in the clear. Hope you guys all have a fund for defense.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 8:33 AM
Surely James was only a half-brother to Jesus.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 8:34 AM
That law can't possibly be constitutional.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 8:47 AM
Whatever happened with that thing (I can't remember the word, engraved funeral box)? First it was "OMG, contemporaneous evidence of the existence of a James, brother of Jesus," and then it was "OMG, it is so forged," but I thought I might have seen something indicating that it was maybe not definitely forged.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 8:49 AM
My reading has left me convinced that while an actual Jesus did exist, the historical Jesus is almost certainly an amalgamation of several contemporaneous, itinerant, Davidic teachers.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 8:53 AM
29 - It's so cute that you think that still matters.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 8:53 AM
What little historical evidence we have for the existence of Jesus was put there by God to test our faith.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 8:57 AM
32 - Cute, yes, but I think the word you're looking for prissy.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 9:02 AM
...looking for is prissy.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 9:04 AM
Apostropher, The term "historical Jesus" is usually used to refer to the "real" Jesus as distinct from the Jesus people believe in -- so are you arguing that the "real" Jesus is some kind of monstrous medical experiment, combining the body parts of various Davidic preachers to create a first-century Frankenstein?
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 9:07 AM
34 is a more interesting comment without "is" inserted per 35.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 9:10 AM
I'm not sure Zizek exists either, Adam.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 9:11 AM
The term "historical Jesus" is usually used to refer to the "real" Jesus as distinct from the Jesus people believe in
Really? I'll be damned. I meant the one who has been handed down through history to us now. This time, I am not the hero.
I do, however, like the Frankenchrist theory.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 9:12 AM
What little historical evidence we have for the existence of Jesus was put there by God to test our faith.
Same thing with the dinosaur bones.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 11:26 AM
What exactly is hoped to be accomplished at trial?
The next thing would be to shut down the vatican and nationalize the art, the libraries and the secret pron collection, which I am sure is unmatched, having been assembled over centuries. I'm going to hell now.
But I don't intend to annoy anyone.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 5:43 PM
Once God is debunked, a lot of the dupes in Heaven can be transferred to Hell.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 9-06 6:58 PM
22 (Praedor Atrebates): Pick, pick, pick.
29 (ogged): damn straight
32 (Becks): Indeed.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:19 AM
Same thing with the dinosaur bones.
Yep. That's one reason 33 is funny, if it's funny at all.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 11:22 AM
Related:
"Dinosaurs were lizards. Lizards never stop growing. That's why old alligators and crocodiles can grow to 25 feet or more. If they lived longer, they would grow even bigger. Before the flood, life lasted longer. Men lived to be 400 to 900 years old. I am sure you don't wish to embrace that thought, but if you embrace God, you embrace His word, and He does not lie. The climate changed after the flood. The earth itself burst open and poured forth floodwaters. The rift probably split the continents asunder, created the mountains, and even tilted the earth off an even 0-degree axis to a 23-degree angle to its orbit. Seasons were born, and winter is hostile to lizards. Thus the dinosaurs died out."
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 11:43 AM
"As to the alleged "similarities" between man and ape, genetically speaking we are actually more similar to pigs."
Speak for yourself!
Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 2:07 PM