Foreword: why this video?

What is "normal"? Normal is anything with which we are familiar. Normal is anything that is repeated every day. Think about it: is there something that you are used to doing that you do not consider normal? Is there something abnormal in what you observe or hear every day? If yes, please write it on the notes below. For this reason, our habit is to perceive ideas or concepts as “normal”, even when they are not so normal. Example: every day in developing countries, 30.000 children die from water shortage and/or food starvation. Every day, we throw away several litres of water and kilograms of food, and it seems normal to us because we take them for granted every single day. However, if you think about it, there is something "strange" occurring... Or think about cigarettes. Smoking is normal. No one is shocked seeing someone smoking, yet smokers spend money on tobacco with packaging that displays the notice, "This product causes heart attacks and strokes"... Another thing we consider normal in the year 2014 is the number of Catholics totalling more than one billion all over the world. That’s over one billion Catholics. It means that approximately 1 out of 7 believe Jesus was born 2000 years ago of the Blessed Virgin Mary; that He is God and became man; He worked miracles and 3 days after His death He was Resurrected. Obviously, everyone knows this story. Every child learns it, therefore, it seems normal. However, we must think about it: what is normal in this story? The problem is, when we consider something normal because we have always known it or because it is constantly repeated to us, we are not likely to ask questions about it. After all, it’s normal, so why investigate it? However, some normal things frighten me: if all these Catholics were right - if a man-God exists and has resurrected from the dead - then we all should convert. But what if they are wrong? It would mean that one billion persons have serious mental disorders, and we live in a world full of potentially dangerous schizophrenics. In any case, this story is absolutely not "normal", and logic should push us to investigate it. In this video, I will try, albeit, with all my limitations, to answer two questions:

1) Did Jesus really exist? 2) If He is existed, is His resurrection possible? I will try to give answers using only logic, without the blind faith of some Catholics; and conversely, without the deaf anti-religiousness of some atheists. Probably, considering the complexity and controversy of this argument, I could be mistaken, somehow, and in some details, but even if that is the case, and considering the amount of certain documents that I am going to report, such potential for some erred technicalities will not compromise the sense of the conclusion.

2. Objection to the foreword. Some people may prefer avoiding an investigation due to ignorance and being conditioned to believe in anything. That is the disposition of so many Catholics: they are ignorant persons who are indoctrinated since their birth. Moreover, I effectively know a lot of ignorant and indoctrinated Catholics. People who could not give an answer to the question "Why do you believe in what you believe?". The impetus of this video’s creation is to bring to light the many Catholics who are the antithesis of not knowing why they have Faith – not knowing why they believe in what they believe… There are a lot of Catholics that are all but ignorant: scientists, philosophers, writers, theologians, etc. These people spent their lives studying, and despite their endeavours in academia, research and thought, they still believe in Jesus' story and they decide to be a Catholic. How could it be possible? Surely we cannot brand the following people as ignorant, naive or indoctrinated: Bacon, Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham, Amerigo Vespucci, Copernicus, Origen, Giotto, Petrarch, Boccaccio, Donatello, Piero della Francesca, Desiderius Erasmus, Botticelli, Michelangelo, Pico della Mirandola, Descartes, Giambattista Vico, Galileo Galilei, Beccaria, Galvani, Alessandro Volta, Lavoisier, Ampere, Pasteur, Mendel, Mercalli, Alexis Carrel, Guglielmo Marconi, Torquato Tasso, Shakespeare, Tommaso Campanella, Caravaggio, Vivaldi, Alexander Pope, De Maistre, Mozart, Beethoven, Stendhal, Manzoni, Chopin, Gaudì, Oscar Wilde, Italo Svevo, Pirandello, Picasso, Umberto Saba, Ungaretti,

Wittgenstein, Tolkien, Fermi, Zichichi, Fellini, Zeffirelli, Morricone, Andy Warhol, etc., etc. Consider the existence of the "International Catholic Movement for Intellectual and Cultural Affairs" (Pax Romana ICMICA / MIIC) having 58000 members! These are all people who certainly have substantive answers to the question, "Why do you believe in what you believe?", and they would not answer with the typical, "You know... my parents and I attended Mass on Sunday, so…”

3. Did Alexander the Great really exist? No one would question the historical existence of one of the biggest kings and commanders in human history, yet no one knew or saw him personally. So, why do we believe in his existence? Basically for two reasons: 1) There are historical sources about Alexander the Great 2) There are archaeological discoveries that confirm, more or less, the historical sources.How many historical sources on Alexander the Great do exist? 100? 1000? 10000? No, they are 4: Arrian of Nicomedia, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Plutarch and Diodorus Siculus. When were these four scriptures written? Was it during Alexander the Great's life? Or 10 years after his death? Or 100 years after? Not at all. The most ancient is dated back to 400 years after Alexander the Great's death. How could a scholar write his biography 4 centuries after his death? Probably, the scholar grounded on other sources, which probably got lost, while his reconstruction reached us. Despite this fact, no one would state, "Alexander the Great never existed!"

4. Objection to the comparison with Alexander the Great. Someone can properly think "Ok, he talked about Alexander the Great because he is the only famous big-name having a few sources". Well, let's talk about other big-names. All we know about Cicero is imputable to Plutarch, born 90 years after Cicero's death. Besides Plutarch there are 4 other ancient authors who mentioned Cicero. The first of Muhammad's biography was written by Ibn Ishaq, which was a century after Muhammad's death. We also know about Confucius thanks to Mencius - the biggest follower of the Confucianism - who wrote about Confucius 100 years after his death. Consider that we know about the life of Dante Alighieri – the highest Italian poet who lived 1300 years after Jesus - thanks only to Boccaccio, who wrote about it 50 years after Dante's death. We could talk like this at length, but I hope the meaning is now understood. Sometimes a few sources are enough to fix the existence of a historical personality, who will not ever be brought into question. Well, it can also be possible that someone states that Dante never existed and that the Divine Comedy has been credited to him for some obscure conspiracy, but the truth is that it was written by Pippo Baudo... but would you believe such notion?

5. Do historical sources about Jesus exist? Yes, there are several historical sources about Jesus: 4 Gospels; the Acts of the Apostles; 13 of Paul's Epistles; the Epistle to the Hebrews; an Epistle of James; 2 of Peter; 3 of John, 1 of Judas and the Apocalypse. No less than 27 historical sources!

6. Objection to "partisan" historical sources. Wait a moment: these are all books composing the New Testament... It is not fair!!!!

7. Do historical sources about Jesus, except the New Testament, exist? It may sound strange but they do exist. Which are they?1) The Didache2) Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians3) The Epistle of Ignatius of Antioch 4) The Shepherd of Hermas 5) The Epistle of Barnabas 6) The Epistle to Diognetus

7) The Fragments of Papias 8) The Epistle of Polycarp 9) The Apologies of Justin10) The Toledot Yeshu

Also, other sources exist, but considering their importance, we will not address them at this time. For the moment, these 10 sources, excluding the 27 of the New Testament, will be enough, provided that archaeological discoveries totally, or partially, confirm these sources...

8. Are there archaeological discoveries that confirm the historical sources about Jesus?

Well, they do exist, some of them are listed below:11) The place of the crucifixion of Jesus12) The Praetorium where Jesus was taken to stand before Pilate13) The Cenacle of the Last Supper14) The Essenes' door15) The Pool of Bethesda with five covered colonnades 16) The Caiaphas ossuary17) The Tower of Siloam18) The stele with the name of Pilate 19) The house of Mary of Nazareth20) The house of Peter21) The Synagogue where Jesus taught 22) The walls of Chorazin23) The street that came down from Jerusalem to Jericho24) The street from the Mount of Olives to Bethania 25) The Titulus Crucis positioned by Pilate on the cross And many others, amongst one in particular, which I hope to prepare in a dedicated video, too.

9. Answer to the first question. Did Jesus really exist? Yes, there are no doubts about it. If Alexander the Great existed, Jesus also existed. So, we know for sure that 2000 years ago a man called Jesus lived in Palestine, and despite not being an emperor, rather, only the son of a carpenter, he has been able to let us collect documents regarding his life. The fact that Jesus really existed still does not mean He was God incarnate in man, nor does it mean He was Resurrected. Why do a lot of people believe these notions?

10.Let's go back to the New Testament. We said that... Yes, there are several historical sources about Jesus: 4 Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, 13 of Paul's Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, an Epistle of James, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of Judas and the Apocalypse. No less than 27 historical sources! Wait a moment: these are all books composing the New Testament... It is not fair!!!! Why is it not fair? For two reasons:a. Being written by Jesus' apostles, they could be "partisan"b. Telling scientifically impossible happenings, they could not be trustworthyActually, the first state is not enough to label these documents as unreliable. Also Confucius, Buddha, Socrates and other historians are known through the writings of their disciples. If we want to be objective, we shall treat Jesus as any other personality of which we received documentation; therefore, if we accept the documents of the disciples of Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, etc. we shall also accept the documents of Jesus' disciples. The second state is more complex. The New Testament talks about miracles such as the Virgin giving birth and raising people from the dead - all facts that cannot be scientifically explained. This is the reason why all of these documents cannot be considered as reliable.

11.Objection regarding Gospels' reliability

At least up to 1700, the New Testament was considered a historical source as reliable as other historical sources. Then something changed. The Enlightenment philosophers started asserting that the Resurrection of Jesus is a physical impossibility and the Gospels tell bullshit. Even though there can be scientific motivation to these events, it is rationally not valid. Why? We should open a parenthesis. Did you ever ask yourselves how do you exist? How did the first man appear on earth? How was the earth created in the universe? How was the universe created? Basically, there are three possible answers to these questions:

a. We have been created by God.b. We have been created by Fate.c. We have been created by extraterrestrial beings

Until 1800 the first answer was the only known. Then Darwinism brought the second answer. Only a few decades ago, someone proposed the third one. Which one is correct? Everyone is free to choose its favourite but, rationally, at least two can be eliminated. The number 3 is the easiest to eliminate: if we have been created by aliens, who created them? Other aliens? And who created those aliens? Therefore, answer number 3 cannot be considered as an answer, because it only postpones the questions. And it doesn't consider the question: how was the universe created? Answer number 2 seems to be, apparently, the most logical: we have been created by fate. But, what is this fate exactly? This case is something that identifies a happening without cause. I.e.: dice is the symbol of the fate. I throw it without knowing which number will appear. Therefore, the drawn number is caused by the "fate". Is it really like this? No, it's not. If I had the tools to calculate the power of the dice's throw, the distance between my hand and the table, the rotation coefficient, the dice's weight, the table's surface, the friction, the bounce angle, etc. - all these variables - I would state with mathematical certainty which number would appear before throwing the dice. As I cannot, I throw and I say that thanks to "fate" number 4 is appeared. Essentially, the "fate" does not exist. We call fate everything we cannot explain. If a lightning hits a tree instead of another, it is not because of fate, but maybe because that tree was more electrically charged than the other. We can make a lot of examples. But the conclusion is that science states that fate does not exist. Therefore, coming back to our answer... if fate does not exist, how could it create us? Furthermore, answer 2 implies that the universe was been created by the Big Bang. What is the Big Bang? It is the explosion of an infinitely little, but with an enormous mass, particle, who accidentally generated billions of galaxies. If this is true, who or what created that particle? Why did it explode? What existed before that particle? Questions without answers. Answer number 2 also implies that suddenly, and by chance, a phytoplankton was been generated on the earth, thus, life was born from that inanimate matter. Think that this phytoplankton came out from thin air would have had, amongst other things, the DNA. Think that a cell's DNA contains all information, as explained in the British encyclopaedia, in such little space that it cannot be visible to the naked eye. And DNA uses only 4 "letters". Think that a single mistake in the DNA writing could prevent cell functioning. Someone tried asserting that, even if the appearance of the first cell is something very dubious, considering billions of years of potential combinations, we can anyway believe that, by chance, it was born. But it's not like that. More exhaustive studies demonstrated that the combinations would be so much that 15 billions of years would represent an unimportant lapse of time. And more: answer number 2 implies that from the first cell another one was born, then a multi-cellular being was born, then a fish, an amphibious, a reptile, a mammal and finally a man. Even if Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism is still taught at school, it has been demonstrated that it is a reckless hoax, for various reasons. One in particular: Darwinism goes against the property of entropy. What is entropy? First of all, it is a law and not a theory (like Darwinism). According to entropy, the whole universe is destined to finish, because everything goes towards a biggest randomness. Don't be afraid.... it will happen in billions of years! Each action releases a certain quantity of energy which is spread in the atmosphere and is not usable anymore. While I am talking, I am consuming energy which, in the form of heat, is spread in the air. This energy cannot be used anymore. Hence, everything relentlessly

tends to a higher grade of entropy, of disorder. Everything except life, at least, according to Neo-Darwinians, goes towards disorder. Practically, while everything becomes more disorderly and random, the evolution produces, by chance, ever more organised and complex beings. The motivations I exposed are only some of the ones which push most parts of scientists, even not Catholic ones, to believe that a God created man and universe. Even Einstein, considered by most the greatest scientist, believed in a God. Not by chance Pasteur said, "Few science brings men farer to God, much science brings men nearer to Him". Hence, the alternatives to God existence are so absurd that, for exclusion, believing in God existence seems to be reasonable. Or if we prefer, believing in fate or aliens is not less absurd than believing in God. Parenthesis closed, let's go back to the point: can we really label the New Testament as unreliable only because it talks about miracles and resurrections? Not at all. Because, if we admit that God can have created the universe, how can we not consider him capable of man’s resurrection? But pay attention! The fact that the Gospels can theoretically tell the truth, is not sufficient to assert that they do.

12. Let's go back to the Palestine of 2000 years ago…

Before carefully analyzing the motivations that convince Catholics to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, we must know the context in which the only man who could self-resurrect lived. Jesus was a Jew and the Jews, in that period, lived under Roman domination. Jews were, already at that time, a people with a unique history. They were the first to be monotheist. Jews believed, and still believe, in what was written in the Old Testament. They believed that the only true God chose them as the chosen people. The Old Testament is full of God interventions to help Jews. The authors of the Old Testament were the prophets, who, lighted by God, have been able to prophesy the future. Several prophets announced to the chosen people that a Messiah would come, and they alluded also to the moment in which He would have come. It may seem absurd, but exactly 2000 years ago, according to Jews, that moment would have come. While Jesus had not yet started his public life, word amongst people was that the Messiah should arrived at any moment. The problem is the Jews had an idea of a Messiah which did not correspond to what Jesus told them. That is the reason why several Jews didn't identify Jesus as the Messiah prophesied by the Scriptures. They expected a powerful man, maybe like Moses, who was the nephew in-law of the Egyptian pharaoh, while Jesus was only a carpenter. They expected someone who would have freed them from the Roman domination. Jesus, instead, taught He had come to free all people, impartially, from sin and death. They expected a man sent by God, but Jesus was not even just a man, for Jesus, instead, taught His hypostasis with God. He revealed Himself as God. For these 3 reasons Jews did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah and asked for His death. But why did they ask for His death? Why simply not recognize Him? Jesus, through his actions and teachings, had become very popular. People started loving him and that was not good for the Temple elite. At that time, in fact, the only place where sacrifices to God were allowed was the Temple in Jerusalem, in an area of Palestine called Judea. That's why Jews are called so. The chief of the Temple was the High Priest, who, when Jesus died, was Caiaphas. The High Priest, together with the Sanhedrin, a sort of directive council, represented the highest religious authority. There was then the political authority represented by Herod, who at that time was king of Judea. It was exactly Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin who asked Pontius Pilate to kill Jesus. Pilate was the Roman Prefect in Judea, and only he had the power to put someone to death. Pilate, who did not see any sin in Jesus, sent him to Herod but Herod, disappointed after having asked Jesus to make some miracles, sent him back to Pilate who, under Jews' pressure, permitted his crucifixion. This is to underline that Jews, the Temple elite and in particular the High Priest and the Sanhedrin, but also Herod and the Romans themselves, were adversaries to Jesus, His teaching and, therefore, his disciples.

13. Does only the New Testament tell about miracles and resurrection?It may seem incredible, but no: there are also non Christian sources that talk about Jesus' miracles and resurrection. Let's analyze them:

A. Josephus was a Jew historian not converted to Christianity. He was, therefore, an enemy of Jesus. He talks twice about Jesus in his work "Antiquities of the Jews", written in 93 d.C. Here is the most important passage:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

This passage is very important because Josephus was born in 37 d.C. in Jerusalem, only a few years after Jesus' death. He lived his youth seeing with his own eyes what the first Christians did and said. His father had priestly descent and his mother claimed royal ancestry. Therefore, he was related with the ones who proceeded against and crucified Jesus! If this passage is authentic, we have a Jew talking about miracles, "he was a doer of wonderful works ", and about resurrection, "he appeared to them alive again the third day ". At this point, the question is: are we sure that this passage is not false or modified by a Christian? Piergiorgio Odifreddi, who was mathematician and should be objective, wrote, "in many manuscripts that reached us, there is not (this passage)". Unfortunately, Odifreddi had not been so mathematician in this statement. The contrary is, instead, true: all codes of the "Antiquities of the Jews", from any provenience, in any language (Greek, Latin, Arabic and Syrian), have the same passage. Contrary to what Odifreddi writes, the manuscripts in which the passage is not present are equal to zero! And fortunately he is a mathematician... Labeling this passage as not authentic would mean believing that a Christian counterfeited all manuscripts, guarded them in libraries all around the world, in all languages, simultaneously, so that no one could notice it. Furthermore, this Christian counterfeiter, should have counterfeited all of these codes, not after 150 d.C. when there was no more need to do it. In fact, at that time everyone believed that the Gospels were historical and true documents, and therefore, there was no reason in counterfeiting the work of an almost unknown Jew historian? As already said, the Gospels were considered as historical documents up to 1700. Well, the Christian counterfeiter could have counterfeited the codes in case that maybe, someone, 1600 years afterward, distrusts the Gospels... foreseeing Christian counterfeiters.

B. The Babylonian Talmud, written in V-VI century d.C., despite being a Jew source, too, and therefore hostile to Jesus, says: "On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."This passage has never been questioned, neither by mathematicians... It is important because there is a quote regarding miracles "he has practiced sorcery", and to the fact that Jesus taught He is God "enticed Israel to apostasy". Venerating a man was considered by Jews as an apostasy, and a blasphemy, so serious as to be punished with death.

C. The Jerusalem Talmud, another Jew source dated in the IV-V century, states

"If a man say to thee 'I am God,' he is a liar; if 'I am the son of man,' in the end people will laugh at him; if 'I will go up to heaven,' he saith, but shall not perform it". It seems to be a clear reference to Jesus, isn't it?

D. A Baraita written before 200 d.C. (Baraita is the transcription of a Jewish law) says: “Jesus practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray”. Sorcery: another reference to the miracles.

E. Tacitus, Roman historian, in his work "Annals", written in 117 d.C., mentions the Christians when talking about Nero, who wanted to avoid being accused of the famous fire of 64:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

This passage is very important because it informs us that already before 64 d.C., therefore just 30 years after Jesus' death, in Rome, approx 2350 km far from Jerusalem, there were a lot of Roman Christians willing to be killed rather than repudiating their faith! But this passage does not talk about Jesus' miracles or resurrection... Or, at least, not directly. What do I mean? Please be patient. We should ask ourselves, like historians did: how did Tacitus know all these details in 117? Tacitus was a historian and surely could not write something by hearsay. Evidently there should have been a document in Rome, from where Tacitus took the information... But, what was that document? Thanks to the work of two Italian students, Marta Sordi and Ilaria Ramelli, we can go back to that document. It's an extraordinary document. We know from the works of the philosopher Justin Martyr (year 150) that after Jesus' death, Pontius Pilate made a report to Tiberius, who was Rome’s emperor at the time. We also know that once every year the provincial governor of Rome (like Pontius Pilate) should send a report listing capital punishments to the emperor. So we are sure that, after Jesus' death, the emperor Tiberius knew about Jesus' crucifixion which, as we will see, has not been a normal crucifixion. We also know from the Christian writer Tertullian (year 197) that emperor Tiberius, after having received Pilate's report "laid before the senate tidings from Palestine which had revealed to him the truth of that Divine Power there manifested, and supported the motion with his own first vote. The senate, because it did not itself approve, rejected the proposal." Essentially, the emperor Tiberius, having known from Pilate about Jesus' crucifixion, and that someone told to have seen Him alive after his death and that He was adored like a God, thought to ask to the Roman Senate to officially accept even this new cult of a new "Divine Power". This request, today, can be considered as strange, but at that time it was not. In fact, Romans have still adopted this type of stratagems, both for stringing along the submitted people because they used to invite all gods to be their guests. Therefore, Tiberius' proposal, even if rejected, has become a Senate document and the official document from which Tacitus, in 117, took his information. And considering that Tiberius had been emperor up to year 37, this document should have been an earlier respect to that date, therefore, going back to a couple of years after Jesus' death!

14. Objection regarding the authenticity of the Senate's document Considering that Tertullian, the writer who talks about Tiberius' proposal to the Senate, was a Christian, people can think that he invented everything. But it's not like that, for two reasons:

a. Tertullian, in the reported text, talks to his contemporary magistrates and writes "consult your annals". If the Senate's document was invented, it would have not been intelligent to invite the magistrates to contradict him.

b.It was just because of this refusal from the Senate that Christianity became an "illicit superstition" in Rome, and therefore, due to that document, Romans could persecute Christians. Tertullian, as a Christian, had no reason to invent a document which justified the Christian persecution!

There are also other sources that demonstrate the historical authenticity of that senate consultation in the years 30's, but I don't want to bore you, therefore, at the end of the video, I suggest a book to the ones who want to examine in depth the argument. But allow me this curiosity: while looking for some information on the matter, I found an old article in which one of the two students mentioned above was interviewed. Here is a passage, "This is just to remark that a lot of Catholics believe that Jesus is resurrected but they are not just naive ignorant persons..."

Before reaching the most astonishing revelation, let's take stock of the situation: Jesus is a real historical person who existed. We have Christian (and even hostile to Christianity) documents referring to miracles and to the supposed Jesus' Resurrection. We have the astonishing evidence that some years after the Crucifixion, the emperor in Rome wanted to make the divinity of Jesus official; yet, all of these documents do not confirm that Jesus is effectively resurrected. But they confirm to us another thing: the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles and the several epistles of the New Testament telling the same things told by the non-Christian sources, which can be considered worthy of being analyzed. So let's do it...

15. When have the Gospels been written? At least until 1700, it was believed that the Gospels had been written a few years after Jesus’ death. When, in the XVIII century, the first Enlightened thinkers started saying that the Gospels were not historical document, they also had to postpone their dating. Why? For a very simple reason: if some texts regarding Jesus’ Resurrection would have started circulating a few years after the crucifixion - when Caiaphas, Pilate, Herod, the men of the Sanhedrim and the Temple's elite who killed Jesus were still alive, and in that same place... well, someone would have gotten pissed. Or, at least, would have said: "What are you writing? The corpse of Jesus is there... in his sepulcher... decayed!"

So, if today Francesco dies and, after a couple of months, I start saying that Francesco did some miracles and that he was God made-man and resurrected... someone, who maybe knew Francesco or who killed him because he was guilty of some horrible crime, would contradict me, thereby, making it difficult for thousands of persons to convert to my new Gospel... It is for this reason that the Enlightened thinkers of 1700 thought that the Gospels were written after year 100, when all protagonists of the Gospels’ events were dead and no one could dissent from the Gospels interpretation, and some simpletons were persuaded more easily because they lived long after Jesus’ time. Obviously, according to the objective Enlightened thinkers, the Gospels were not written by the disciples – eyewitnesses - but people who lived a hundred years afterward, who did not see, hear or invent anything. Unfortunately, truth denies the Enlightened thinkers. There are tens of evidences demonstrating that the last Gospel - John’s - was written before year 70, therefore, at least 40 years after the Crucifixion. But, as said before, I don't want to bore you, so I will talk to you about one only evidence that is obvious and more than enough. At the beginning of the XX century, a cavern has been found next to the Dead Sea, and inside it there were some manuscripts. That cavern had been sealed in year 68 after the destruction of the city of Qumran that very same year. These manuscripts, the famous Dead Sea Scrolls, have been studied for years. Some fragments were identified in several literary works obviously dated previous to the cavern's sealing. Some of them were not identified. One in particular, fragment 7Q5, was dated previously to year 50 by the papyrology expert Colin

Robert, even without identifying it. Finally, in 1971, an archaeologist and papyrology expert called José O’Callaghan, by means of a specifically programmed computer, succeeded in identifying it as a fragment of Mark's Gospel! “for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened. When they had crossed over, they landed at Gennesaret and anchored there” (Mark 6:52-53). Obviously, this perturbing discovery is passed unnoticed, because up to that day, the leading culture is the continuation of the Enlightened one of 1700. Why the hiding of the definitive evidence of Mark's Gospel being written before year 50? David Strauss, one of the exponents of that culture started in 1700 that continues to the present day, explains it to us. Strauss, author of, " The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined", in which he writes that all miracles and resurrections are myths, and in 1835 explains: "The evangelical history would be untouchable if it can be agreed that it had been written by eyewitnesses or by men near to the happenings". Oh oh! Therefore, if Strauss was alive today, he would have to admit that his writings were bullshit and that Gospels are untouchable! Who knows if he would be so intellectually correct! Therefore, also thanks to Strauss, we today know that Gospels are untouchable. But this is not important for us. The importance is in the possibility of Jesus’ Resurrection. Can Gospels answer to this question?

16. Is Jesus resurrection possible? To give an answer, let's start from a simple consideration: if Jesus is not resurrected, His corpse, going through putrefaction, would have stayed in the sepulcher where it was closed. Now: if after Jesus death the apostles started bearing witness to his Resurrection, why did not Jesus’ enemies, the most powerful men of Palestine, just open the sepulcher showing everybody the putrefying corpse of Jesus? Simple: they could not do it, because three days after His death, Jesus' sepulcher was empty and his corpse was missing. Is this enough to believe that Jesus is resurrected? Absolutely not. Let's see what happened after Jesus death; in Matthew 27: 62-66 we read: "The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.” “Take a guard,” Pilate answered. “Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.” So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard." In spite of these precautions, the corpse disappeared and Matthew 28:11-15 writes: "While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day"

Consequently, the alternatives are two:a. Jesus is resurrected b. The apostles bypassed the security system and purloin the corpse to stage the Resurrection.

Surely, the second option seems more credible respect to the first one... So why do lots of people believe to the first one? Let's try walking on the apostles' shoes: we are fishermen, we have a home, a family, and we can survive thanks to our hard work. One day, we know a very charismatic man, Jesus. This man strikes us so much that we decide to follow him, and we follow him for three years. During these three years we are present to his miracles, or to his sorcery, if you prefer. We listen to his parables and his teachings, words so sublime and full of love that hit everybody, even the ones who listen to them for the first time. This man slowly decided to show himself and say that he is God. What do we do? Do we believe him? Effectively, he

behaves as a better being. Effectively we were waiting for the Messiah described in the Scriptures... but can he really be the Messiah? A carpenter? Sometimes he tells strange things that we cannot understand. Then, one day, He is captured. Oh damn, the Messiah cannot be captured... They say they want to crucify him. Crucifixion is the capital punishment reserved to the worst criminals. How can God be crucified as a criminal? They charge him with blasphemy, and all people are against him now. People knew that Jesus had some apostles. They know about us. Maybe they will crucify us, too. We have to run away if we want to be safe, we have to pretend we have never knew him. At least, if Jesus is God, he will not die crucified as a criminal, won’t he? But Jesus dies on the cross. What do we do now? Our master is not here anymore. Maybe we were wrong. Maybe Jesus was a simple man. We followed him for three years, but now everything is finished. Maybe we should come back to our work as fisherman, to come back to our homes. This should be more or less the climate of the apostles after Jesus Crucifixion. Peter, who was maybe the most important of the apostles, when Jesus was captured, repudiated Him three times. He was scared. He didn't want to be captured as his Master. He didn't want to die. Maybe a part of them, the one who saw the miracles, believed that Jesus was God. But surely they were not certain. Otherwise they would have not abandoned him in the most difficult moment. While Caiaphas soldiers were spitting in Jesus' face, slapping, punching and insulting him, that's what happens (Matthew 26:69-75): "Now Peter was sitting out in the courtyard, and a servant girl came to him. “You also were with Jesus of Galilee,” she said. But he denied it before them all. “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” he said. Then he went out to the gateway, where another servant girl saw him and said to the people there, “This fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth.” He denied it again, with an oath: “I don’t know the man!” After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, “Surely you are one of them; your accent gives you away.” Then he began to call down curses, and he swore to them, “I don’t know the man!” Immediately a rooster crowed. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: “Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.” And he went outside and wept bitterly." The conclusion of the Gospel of John is maybe the part that better explains the apostles mood (John 21:2-3): "There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples. Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing." Peter's sentence "I go a fishing" means really that everything is finished. That God is dead, and their adventure has come to an end, and it is time to begin again the life they abandoned for three years. They were wrong, Jesus was not the Messiah, He was neither God, He has been crucified, He was dead and now they had to look forward. They deceived themselves. If Jesus, with his miracles and his sublime words, was not able to convince people, how could they, simple and ignorant fishermen, do it? And how could they explain to people that the crucified dead man was God? It was impossible, people did not believe Him when He was alive making miracles, imagine now.... Now, it is time to come back fishing - doing what they always did - it was time for normality. This was the mood of the apostles after Jesus’ death. And this is the moment in which something happens. We do not know what happens, but we have two alternatives:

1) Jesus is resurrected 2) The apostles bypassed the security system and purloin the corpse to stage the resurrection.

Which one is the truth? It still seems that answer number 2 is more plausible. Let's skip that moment and suspend that answer, going to the following one.

17. How could Christianity spread over AFTER Jesus death? We know from the Acts of the Apostles, but also from other documents that, after a few years or just a few months after Jesus’ death, thousands of people had converted to the new "god". For that reason, the

emperor Tiberius proposed to officially recognize Jesus' cult. How could it be possible? When Jesus was alive He has been crucified and now that He is dead as a criminal, He is being adored like He is God? Even by the same people spiting and mocking at him? There is something strange in this. And what about the apostles? Are they still fishing? No, they were responsible of the conversion of thousands of persons. Peter the coward, the one who ran away leaving his friend and Master to die, started telling to the crowd in the middle of a square - the same persons who killed Jesus - things for which he could be crucified. So, suddenly, Peter showed his attributes and says (Acts, 2:22-24): "Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[a] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him" and also "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it." And still "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it" and tells even more troublesome things "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this." And this is only the beginning of the apostles’ witness. Two months after Jesus’ death, they were moving around to tell having seen Jesus resurrected and that Jesus was God; and this occurred while the ones who crucified Jesus were still able to crucify them, too. And, in fact: "The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people, proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. They seized Peter and John and, because it was evening, they put them in jail until the next day. But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand. The next day the rulers, the elders and the teachers of the law met in Jerusalem. Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and others of the high priest’s family. They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: “By what power or what name did you do this?”" What did Peter answer? Did he deny Jesus again? No, not that time: "It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead", so "commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”" Peter seems to be changed. In fact the apostles, after having been released because the Sanhedrin didn't want to go against the crowd acclaiming at them, continued bearing witness that absurdity: Jesus resurrection. And they were arrested again: "At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them. The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings! The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After

him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah." Let's start considering the hypothesis that the apostles took Jesus’ corpse to fabricate his resurrection. In this case, they were aware that Jesus was not resurrected, that He was dead, and therefore that he was a simple man. So why say all these bullshit fables? What could have been the benefit? Looking at the Vatican of today, we could think "maybe they lied in order to enrich". But, at that time, it was not like this. The apostles did not gain anything and risked to be put to death. They avoided the capital punishment only because people believed them. But they couldn't know that people would have believed them... so why risking their lives telling bullshit stories? Would you, after being whipped, keep on telling lies with an end to themselves?

18.The strange case of Paul Paul was not one of the 12 apostles. On the contrary, Paul was a Jew who persecuted the first Christians after Jesus’ death. Paul was present when Stephen, the first Christian martyr gave his life to witness Jesus’ death, had been killed. Paul, contrary to the apostles who were simple fishermen, was a cultured man. He studied and knew a lot of languages. But suddenly, something happens and Paul is no more a Christian persecutor, but maybe the greatest evangelizer. Even Paul’s evangelization is based on the direct witness (1 Corinthians, 15:3-9): "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." Furthermore, Paul tells that the resurrected Jesus is appeared to more than 500 persons, most of which were still alive during Paul's sermons. It is an explicit invitation to the ones listening to him: "Don't you believe me? Go and ask people!". Evidently Paul was sure not to be contradicted, otherwise he would have not mouthed this off! After his quick conversion, Paul in 20 years travels for 16800 km, of which 7800 by foot and 9000 by boat or other means. Really a long way, especially considering that at that time travelling was not so comfortable, and especially if we consider that Paul was afflicted by a chronic illness, which was particularly annoying. He writes (2 Corinthians, 11:24-27) "Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. I have laboured and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked." So they were not pleasure trips. And Paul knew exactly the risks and the reprisals he could have suffered, after having seen directly Stephen's, the first martyr, stoning. So why would a sound mind person decide to live such a torture for 20 years, knowing that at the end he would die with excruciating pains? The official version explains that Paul converted while he was going to Damascus to persecute other Christians: Jesus (who was

already dead) appeared to him and gave him this mission. Can we trust this version? How can we believe that a dead man appears to people? Surely it cannot be. We have two alternatives:

a. Paul invented the appearanceb. Paul is a crazy visionaryAlternative number 1 is maybe more absurd than the official version. There is no sense in thinking that a person invents a story and then travels for 20 years and thousands of km, suffering all inconveniences we talked about, to finally die decapitated, and above all, without gaining anything! So the options are two:1) Jesus really appeared to Paul 2) Paul is a crazy visionary Let's postpone Paul's matter and come back to the apostles.

19.Did the apostles tell the truth, or...?

The adventures of the apostles, after Jesus’ death, are not very different from Paul's. Eleven of the twelve apostles would be killed to witness Jesus’ Resurrection. All apostles confirmed their witnesses, even in front of threats, floggings, persecutions and tortures, up to death. Each apostle gave a deposition congruent to the others', without any change in their telling, even when a slight modification could have spared them some tortures. All apostles (except of John) died horribly: crucified head-down, head-up, decapitated, dismembered, immersed in boiling oil. All apostles knew, when starting their mission, what they were going to face. Jesus did not prophesy them honor and glory, but rather, hate from the powerful and a persecution to death. Each one knew that carrying on that evangelization mission could expose both them and their families to risk. How could this thoughtless behavior be justified? Excluding Jesus Resurrection, there are only two possibilities:

c. The apostles lied consciously d. The apostles are crazy visionaries gone insane simultaneously

Believing in the first option is illogical. No one in the human being history gave his life to protect a damaging lie. In fact, we said that if Jesus is not resurrected, then the apostles themselves should have purloined the corpse from the sepulchre. Now: would you stage a fraud to then protect it for decades, and in the process, suffering physical and psychological tortures up to death? And there is another aspect, too, that is likewise important. It is possible that some men, in order to seem better in society’s eyes, tell or write lies to self-exalt themselves. But not the apostles. They suffered the worst sufferings to tell a story in which the main character was not one of them, in which they were humiliated by their cowardice, abandoning and denying their friend God in time of need and letting him die as a criminal, without even trying to save him. Believing that someone could defend a lie at the cost of his own life, which even makes him a bad person, is simply a silly notion. The second option is left: the apostles are crazy visionaries gone insane simultaneously. Effectively, if someone goes insane, he can tell what he thinks to have seen and maybe bear witness to something that exists only in his head up to death. Even this second possibility is not exempt of logic gaps. It is possible that a person gets crazy and behaves like that... but believing that 13 persons (11 apostles + Matthew who substituted Judas + Paul) get crazy simultaneously and in the same way... this would mean believing in the impossible. Even more so if we consider that those crazy visionaries, who were just simple fishermen, instead of locking themselves in their houses drooling and counting their fingers, decided to travel around the world to bear witness to the greatest and most eccentric story ever told, with an awareness that has never abandoned them, speaking various languages and converting hundreds of persons. At this point, I hereby quote an intellectual who is far from the Church, Jean Jacques Rousseau: "After Jesus Christ death, twelve poor fishermen set about teaching and converting people

around the world. Their method was simple: they predicated without any artifice, but with a passionate heart and, of all the miracles of which God honoured their faith, the most touching one was the holiness of their lives. Their disciples followed their example and the success was wonderful. The pagan priests, alarmed, made the princes be afraid that the state was lost because the offerings decreased. So the persecutions started and did not anything else but hastening the progress of this new religion that they wanted to repress. All Christians run towards martyrdom, all people run towards baptism. The story of this early times is a continuous prodigy." All serious scholars cannot but agree with Rousseau. Even not considering Jesus’ Resurrection, the historical and indisputable fact of the Christianity diffusion, remains a miracle. Von Harnack, a rationalistic exegete, admits "a so extraordinary diffusion without miracles would be the biggest miracle". And here is the point: to which miracle do we want to believe? Jesus’ Resurrection or to 12 crazy fishermen who suddenly succeeded in converting half a world with a story they invented? We are free to choose which miracle we want to believe. Both options have the same degree of absurdity.

20. And what if the Gospels have been counterfeited in the course of time?

There is but an objection that we have not considered. We have settled with mathematic certainty that Gospels have been written a little after Jesus’ death. But how can we know if the first Gospels, written more than 2000 years ago, are equal to the ones we nowadays read? We can know it thanks from historiography. Let's consider, as an example, Horace, a Jesus contemporary and one of the most important ancient poets. Two-hundred fifty manuscripts of his works reached us, the most ancient is dated 8 centuries after his death. And then one-hundred ten manuscripts of Homer, the most ancient of which is dated 20 centuries after his death. Eleven manuscripts of Plato, the most ancient, dates 1100 years after his death. The examples are several, but I think they could be enough. So now ask yourself: how many manuscripts of the Gospels did reach us? 34086. Yes, 34086. The most ancient is dated less than 100 years after Jesus’ death. These manuscripts are in several languages (Greek, Latin, Syrian, Coptic) all identical more or less. The differences are some negligible details regarding particulars that do not modify important passages as miracles, resurrection or the doctrine. As the historian Raps says: "we can assert without any fear that no other ancient book exist which has reached us in so perfect conditions".

21.What about apocryphal Gospels? This is a question that everybody should ask oneself: why do Catholics believe in the 4 apostolic Gospels but not in the apocryphal ones? Some atheists play the trump of the "apocryphal Gospels" to shut the Catholics up. Actually, there are at least two big differences between the apostolic and the apocryphal ones:

e. The apostolic ones have been written before the apocryphal ones and by eyewitnesses or at least men near to the facts.

It seems like some writers, after the first big wave of conversion to Christianity, wanted to ride the wave of the moment, putting something personal, adding something to the story of the new Jesus God.f. The apostolic ones are based on the testimony while the apocryphal ones are based on a sort of

"symbolism" Reading the apostolic ones it is clear that the evangelists try telling objectively a story that really happened. Let's take as an example Jesus’ passion. The novelists would have underlined this climax when the main character is being whipped, hit, insulted, ridiculed, crucified, etc. The evangelists instead talk about the passion in a few lines, as a simple chronologic and almost distant story: the account of a historian, indeed. The same is about resurrection. Some novelists would have added some special effect, something amazing, but not the apostolic Gospels, which were written to describe the resurrected Jesus in a sobering way.

Furthermore, the apostolic ones have no hidden meanings or symbols to be interpreted in Dan Brown's style. It is just the story of the last 3 years of Jesus' life. The apocryphal ones are exactly the opposite. Think that at the beginning of his Gospel Luke uses precisely the terminology of the ancient historians: “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught".

22. Some curiosities about Gospels For a long time it has been believed that the Gospels were written in Greek. Instead, the original ones were written in a Semitic language - Aramaic or Hebrew - and then translated into Greek, Latin, etc. Some eminent philology scholars translated the Gospels back from Greek to Semitic and found several wordplays that do not exist in the Greek version. They also disclosed some obscure passages: For example:

a. Jesus quote of camel going through the eye of a needle is famous... but it has no sense. Actually, translating camel from Greek to Hebrew we have the word "gamal", very similar to the word "gamta" that means "hawser". The hawser is a very thick rope used to moor fishermen boats. Probably, a translation mistake changed the rope to the camel. It makes more sense, in fact, saying that it is difficult for a hawser to go through the eye of a needle.

b. Somebody thinks that Jesus had brothers. But in the Semitic original language the word "brother" has a wider sense, in fact apostles and disciples are called "Jesus’ brothers".

c. Somebody doubts the Church’s authority. Actually, it is written in the original Gospels that Jesus was very explicit regarding that point. Quote: "And he (Jesus) warned them to always see him (Peter) as the Son of the Man". So it is written in the Gospels that Peter, the first Pope, shall be considered like the temporal alternative to Jesus.

Even the Holy Communion that keeps happening in the Masses all around the world has been "prophesied" by Jesus, and this is more understandable in the original version that quotes, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover lamb when I was far from you, far from the morning of my coming towards my suffering. For I tell you, when I will be eaten like it, the kingdom of God will find fulfilment.”

There are many others to be quoted but it seems to me, watching here below, that the video is finishing and so let's quickly conclude.

23.ConclusionSo, what did we discover? Is Jesus resurrected or not? No one can guarantee that he is resurrected. But no one can guarantee either that he is not. But I hope I demonstrated a thing: believing in Jesus’ Resurrection is something reasonable. Catholics, the true ones, who know what they believe, are not naive persons believing in fables. The data I listed are only a small part of what should be known. I hope with all my heart that, if you have listened up to now, this video is not the end but the beginning of a research. I assure you that there is nothing more touching and satisfying than the research of the Truth. Speaking of Truth, let me tell you just the last two events, before I stop. Jesus said "Truth will make you free" and Jesus revealed Himself as the Truth. But when Pontius Pilate asks Jesus, "What is the truth?", Jesus does not answer. He stays in silence. Pontius Pilate was a Roman, so in Latin his question was "Quid est veritas?". The evangelists, who wrote in Semitic, could certainly not know what it has been discovered just some decades ago from Father Anacleto Bendazzi. Pilate's question stays without answer because the answer is in the question itself. How could Pilate ask, "What is the truth?", when the Truth incarnate in flesh is just in front of his eyes? "Quid est veritas?" is the perfect anagram of "Est vir qui adest", that is "is the man in front of

you". Is it just a coincidence. It could be. More difficult to explain is another passage of the Gospels. When Jesus is captured, he is guided to Caiaphas who asks him if He is the son of God. At this point Jesus has two possibilities. Telling the truth or lying. Jesus answers that he is the son of God. And for this blasphemy he is condemned to death. Now ask yourself: did Jesus tell the truth or did he lie? If he lied, it would have been one case in a kind: telling a lie to be condemned to death. A lot of people would do the contrary: they would lie to save themselves. But if Jesus lied, he would have done the contrary: lying to be condemned. This is something really senseless and inhuman. Logic can only let us think that in that moment, Jesus told the truth, that he is the Son of God. Do you really think that some fishermen could invent a story like that? With all these sublime shades? (430) (432)

24.Thanks Most information have been taken from the wonderful book of Antonio Socci, "La guerra contro Gesù" (the war against Jesus) and from the book of Father Pasqualino Fusco, "la vera religione" (the true religion), that I suggest to everybody. I also want to thank dr. Marcello, the first cultured Catholic who opened my mind. Thanks to Mauro, too, the second cultured Catholic who gave me a lot of books, and suggested to me the course about the 10 Commandments. And last but not least, thanks to Father Giulio, the Franciscan Father whom I met thanks to God; and thanks to Laurina, whom, thanks to God, I will soon marry. For the record, I was once like that: I was dressing like Blasphemy up to the Carnival of 2009. I was atheistic, anti-Catholic and anti-clerical. This video is dedicated also to the ones who have seen me changing and, rightly, asked me: what happened to you? Does the Vatican pay you? Do the Jesuits pay you? No, I just discovered that believing is rational. But rationality is not enough. For me it was just necessary to start finding the Truth. Did I find it? Not so. The truth found me.