Better to be three steps ahead of the law then three steps ahead of that damn shark below!

Well, I agree with the judge's reasoning. If someone denounced me for saying the sky is blue...

'course, I probably wouldn't have taken it to court.

That shouldn't be incredibly difficult.

You can't prove that Christ was divine, of course. But the guy did exist.

All he should have to do is show a really simple timeline for the Bible to do it. I mean the earliest manuscripts we have of the Gospels are about 50 years after his death...

[Eyes rolling] You may not believe Jesus was the Messiah, but to believe he didn't exist is to "abuse popular credulity"

More of these secular judges with their walnut brains too much of the darwinsm crap

He should just bring in a copy of the Da Vinci Code. It's been researched and everything!

Or, getting off the snark, I could totally make that judge my bitch with a copy of Bart Ehrman's "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium".

The proposition that Jesus "was a historical figure" (and that he was baptised by John and asserted he was Messiah) isn't hard to prove. Do a Google on "Ehrman dissimilarity".

In ancient history, you don't set out to prove he existed. You prove he was a historical figure. You show that he was as likely to have existed as other Jewish messianists existed at this time, as well as Arminius the rebel German and a few other contemporaries only mentioned in later histories.

This Italian judge is an ass. (Would it be wrong to call him "christ killer"?)

TGhe Judge tried to keep this out of court but was forced to take the case by an apeals court.
This type of stuff happens from time to time.
The author of 'Ben Hur' started writing the book witht he express purpose of writing a book that would *finally* dispose of those pesky Christians.
He converted in the midst of writing the book and gave us the beautiful story of Ben Hur, as well as becoming a Christian.
Does anyone remember those cute John Denver movies of the early 80's?
God was always getting sued, or his spokesman would be, and god would always blow them away.
The case, if it actually does go trial, should be quite interesting.

Am I the only one seeing the blogad beside the comments about the anti-Jesus documentary? Did you plan that, Ace?

It's not such a crazy idea. I've heard more and more people go with the "Jesus is a re-telling of Sumerian fables" arguments when you corner them on religion.

If you accept that Jesus existed, you have to start explaining the Biblical accounts. Easier to simply say, "oh, he didn't really exist, it's all a big put-on."

(Of course, then you have to explain why his followers were willing to die, in poverty, for a fable they invented...)

If that judge wants proof that god is real then he should take a direct hit from a bolt of lightning

Recalls years ago, when someone argued that Homer didn't really write the Odyssey.

This was before the Internet mind you, and and may have been the first snark ever, who knows (new thread?).

The response was: "Yeah, it wasn't Homer. It was some other blind guy named Homer."

The paraphrase is obvious, and it'll end with "some other Guy named Jesus."

How come every ancient document we can find constitutes evidence (if not proof) of the things it documents, with the exclusive exception of those documents that have been accepted as cannonical Scripture?

Dave, my theory is that people see what they want to see. Even scientists aren't 100% objective.