Half-Life

http://www.av1611.org/resur.html

Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:

"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."
(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).


Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of history!

And not only that, Dr. Greenleaf was so convinced by the overwhelming evidence, he committed his life to Jesus Christ!

What changed his mind? What evidence did Dr. Greenleaf encounter that so drastically turned him around? What facts did he discover that he could not rationally ignore?

This page makes a great case for the resurrection.

Steven Carr

By the rules of evidence?

What a joke!

We Brits hear strange things about American justice, but not even we believe that American courts would accept into the record any testimony on the grounds that it has already been cross-examined outside the court and found satisfactory.

(Perhaps I am wrong about American courts, who knows?)



Greenleaf wrote 'The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries. This has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner by others, who have written expressly upon this subject. Referring therefore to their writings for the arguments and proofs, the fact will here be assumed as true.'

I'm afraid that such testimony will only be met with tears of laughter from sceptics, who rather think that somebody who assumes from the start that Christianity is a true revelation from God is not a person who set out to disprove the myth of the resurrection.

Iskander

Why? Human sacrifice to atone for the original sin is at the heart of Christianity but this sacrifice is unnecessary since it is in God’s power to just simply forgive.

This human offering has burdened people with guilt and created ugly symbolic language (washing with blood.)

It has tortured Jews for centuries with punishing pogroms

To suggest that man has killed God is blasphemy and to have mankind saved by murder of an innocent man is sad and ugly.

Kosh

The problem with a Half-Life, as that you never quite finish what you started.... ;-)

Here is another Lawyers viewpoint

Chili

He became a saved sinner?

Diogenes the Cynic

The evidence is non-existent and the "testimony" would never be allowed under any rules of evidence because no foundation can be established for the identity of those giving testimony. They are anonymous, non-independent, non-eywitnesses of alleged events that occurred anywhere from 40-100 years before they gave their "testimony." It isn't even possible to establish whether they intended their stories to be understood as factual history or as fiction. Not only that, but they are immensely vulnerable on cross-examination and outright impeachable on multiple points.

Any physical evidence, it bears repeating, is non-existent.

Steven Carr

Greenleaf also blundered by claiming that because the Domesday Book would be allowed into court , the Gospels also would.

Courts allow ancient documents to be entered, not modern reconstructions of what ancient documents might have said, which is what Bibles are.

The most ancient document we have of the New Testament is p52.

That might well be allowed into the courtroom, but it won't help much in proving the resurrection.

hallq

Go to this site:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/

Read article VIII.

The stuff's a little dense, but if I'm reading it right, the gospels fall under "hearsay within hearsay" - ancient documents, yes, but the documents were based on hearsay. Unless there's an exception I missed for the hearsay within these ancient doccuments, we have to reject everything except I Cor 15:8 (not to be confused witt I Cor 15:3-8) which clearly isn't enough.

Half-Life

One of the most important from the site is the fact that Christianity was spreading very rapidly throughout the area. The Romans hated this. If they could just produce Jesus' body there would be an end to this and they would have proved no resurrection. But guess what? They couldn't find the body. Don't you find this a bit strange? They put the body in the tomb with guards around it and yet they coulnd't find the body once Christianity was spreading.

How is this not some kind of proof?

Toto

Christianity was not spreading rapidly in the third decade of the first century. The Romans did not notice it until early in the second century, by which time there would be no way to find the body.

The Romans were more concerned with Jewish nationalist revolts, and were quick to put them down.