[Buddha-l] it's not about belief

[SJZiobro at cs.com]

"Richard P. Hayes" <rhayes at unm.edu> wrote:

>On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 18:02 -0500, Stanley J. Ziobro II wrote:
>
>> The issue, as I've understood it, is that a priest in Viterbo Italy is not
>> required to appear in court to attest to the existence of Jesus.  In the
>> article where this was related the Gospels were deemed unworthy of
>> consideration as a viable source for Jesus' existence, because they are
>> scriptures for a faith community.
>
>That seems a perfectly reasonable conclusion in a court of law,
>especially in a country that has become very secular, as Italy has done.
>Why allow the gospels as evidence and not various gnostic writings? Why
>believe the gospels rather than the Qur'an, which says that Jesus was
>married and was never crucified? It is in the nature of all evidence
>that it becomes stronger if it is corroborated by independent accounts.

Richard,

If the case centers around Jesus' historical existence, then not only the Gospels, but the Gnostic Gospels, the Talmud, the Koran, etc. attest thereto.  That is the point of the case, isn't it, whether Jesus existed?  The truth claims as to his divinity are another matter.  

Stan Ziobro