Freethought & Rationalism Archive

diana · 10-20-2002, 07:02 PM

What follows is a chunk of an e-mail discussion I've been having with a new friend. You'll note places that are somewhat disjointed, and that is because this piece falls in the middle of an ongoing conversation (but I think the gist is preserved, so I essentially reproduced it verbatim, as it gives you the flavor of the thing).

He's very earnest and sincere, not to mention polite, so I ask that all replies assume his goodwill.

He's touched on several points that I feel others are far better to address than me--such as evidence of the crucifixion, what a court of law would find reasonably convincing--so I have elected to take this conversation public for that purpose.

HIM: There is, IMHO, legal proof that would meet the "best evidence" The idea in a court of law is proof that convinces a jury. There is no way to go to crime scene and replicate the crime. The jury must sift conflicting testimony and evidence and decide. Comtempoary writings near the crucifixtion, behavior of Xns near that time, the continuation of Xn compared to Buddhism, are legal-type proofs. Could you give conflicting arguements? Sure, just like the defense attorney would provide the jury. As a jury of one, I decided the legal proof was convincing.

ME: I'm keen to hear it.

(I was thinking those of you more familiar with legal proceedings and what constitutes admissible evidence might at least list a few resources for him to check out along those lines. I know some of you have these references at the tips of your fingers. Also, anyone who wishes to take on the "contemporary sources" one can have at it.)

DC, you might begin by listing what you consider "contemporary sources near the crucifixion" that would be considered admissible in a court of law.

d

Uzzah · 10-20-2002, 08:00 PM

IANAL (I am not a lawyer) but you might want to look up Lee Strobel's "Case for Christ" along with Earl Doherty's utter destruction of Strobel's case in "Challenging the Verdict". Both assume a pseudo-courtroom appearance.

Uzzah

wade-w · 10-20-2002, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by diana:


There is, IMHO, legal proof that would meet the "best evidence" The idea in a court of law is proof that convinces a jury. There is no way to go to crime scene and replicate the crime. The jury must sift conflicting testimony and evidence and decide.

As I understand it, the legal system doesn't technically require proof that will convince a jury, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt

Ronin · 10-21-2002, 03:59 AM

The crucifixion and all the tenets of Christianity are based on 'faith' ~

Faith is the firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

10-21-2002, 04:49 AM

What is being asked?

The crucifixion of Jesus of Nazereth is a historical fact which no serious historian doubts. While there is no absolute proof, historical methodology does place this fact beyond reasonable doubt. We have several independent witnesses: Mark, Paul, John, Josephus and perhaps authors of the other Catholic letters. We also know that there is no motive that makes sense for making up the crucifixion.

On the other hand, the resurrection, which is the the real cornerstone of Christian faith, is not open to historical proof.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Capt_Drakes · 10-21-2002, 07:37 AM

Since when was Josephus an independent witness to Christ's crucification?

Starboy · 10-21-2002, 08:19 AM

I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that it might go something like this:

Defense,

We have established the sequence of events:

1. Jesus nailed to the cross
2. Removed from the cross after an unusually short time and presumed dead by reason of the "poke by a spear test".
3. Placed in the tomb.
4. Next day the tomb is found �open� and the body of Jesus is missing.
5. Several days after the body is missing there are eyewitnesses that testify having seen Jesus walking the streets.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, can there be any clearer case of resurrection.

The defense rests.

Prosecution:

It is not necessary to dispute the facts presented by my esteemed college. I shall accept them as they are, but I would like to present to the court that the most reasonable explanation is that Jesus did not die on the cross and was rescued by his followers. I also submit that due to the very short time on the cross and the unreliable nature of the presumption of death by use of the "poke with at spear" test. That fraud may have been involved, with Jesus working with accomplices to fake his death for the purposes of avoiding punishment and to deceive his followers into to thinking that he was the deity. If Jesus were the deity and wished to provide better proof to his followers of this, it should have been possible for the body to remain in the tomb and still have Jesus make an appearance after death to his followers.

The prosecution rests.

Starboy

Boro Nut · 10-21-2002, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by diana:
He's touched on several points..

He's a christian isn't he? Aren't they all touched on several points.

Boro Nut

Atticus_Finch · 10-21-2002, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ronin:
The crucifixion and all the tenets of Christianity are based on 'faith' ~

Faith is the firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

That is incorrect. Christian faith is based on historical fact. Paul wrote that if Christ is not risen then our faith is in vain. Therefore, Christianity purports to be based on historical fact. "Faith" is belief in the promises of God and His word. For example, one could believe that Jesus lived, died and rose again and not have "faith" that he will return in glory. But, a Christian can not reasonably believe that Jesus will return in glory unless he believes that Jesus actually lived, died and rose again.

Regards,

Finch

CX · 10-21-2002, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Capt_Drakes:
Since when was Josephus an independent witness to Christ's crucification?

I assume that is a reference to the Testimonium Flavianum.

10-20-2002, 07:02 PM	#1
diana Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 6,471	The crucifixion: proof that convinces a jury What follows is a chunk of an e-mail discussion I've been having with a new friend. You'll note places that are somewhat disjointed, and that is because this piece falls in the middle of an ongoing conversation (but I think the gist is preserved, so I essentially reproduced it verbatim, as it gives you the flavor of the thing). He's very earnest and sincere, not to mention polite, so I ask that all replies assume his goodwill. He's touched on several points that I feel others are far better to address than me--such as evidence of the crucifixion, what a court of law would find reasonably convincing--so I have elected to take this conversation public for that purpose. HIM: There is, IMHO, legal proof that would meet the "best evidence" The idea in a court of law is proof that convinces a jury. There is no way to go to crime scene and replicate the crime. The jury must sift conflicting testimony and evidence and decide. Comtempoary writings near the crucifixtion, behavior of Xns near that time, the continuation of Xn compared to Buddhism, are legal-type proofs. Could you give conflicting arguements? Sure, just like the defense attorney would provide the jury. As a jury of one, I decided the legal proof was convincing. ME: I'm keen to hear it. (I was thinking those of you more familiar with legal proceedings and what constitutes admissible evidence might at least list a few resources for him to check out along those lines. I know some of you have these references at the tips of your fingers. Also, anyone who wishes to take on the "contemporary sources" one can have at it.) DC, you might begin by listing what you consider "contemporary sources near the crucifixion" that would be considered admissible in a court of law. d

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-20-2002, 08:00 PM	#2
Uzzah Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tennessee Posts: 196	IANAL (I am not a lawyer) but you might want to look up Lee Strobel's "Case for Christ" along with Earl Doherty's utter destruction of Strobel's case in "Challenging the Verdict". Both assume a pseudo-courtroom appearance. Uzzah

10-21-2002, 03:59 AM	#4
Ronin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Mississippi Posts: 5,047	The crucifixion and all the tenets of Christianity are based on 'faith' ~ Faith is the firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

10-21-2002, 04:49 AM	#5
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	What is being asked? The crucifixion of Jesus of Nazereth is a historical fact which no serious historian doubts. While there is no absolute proof, historical methodology does place this fact beyond reasonable doubt. We have several independent witnesses: Mark, Paul, John, Josephus and perhaps authors of the other Catholic letters. We also know that there is no motive that makes sense for making up the crucifixion. On the other hand, the resurrection, which is the the real cornerstone of Christian faith, is not open to historical proof. Yours Bede <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

10-21-2002, 07:37 AM	#6
Capt_Drakes Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Ventura, CA Posts: 1,870	Since when was Josephus an independent witness to Christ's crucification?

10-21-2002, 08:19 AM	#7
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that it might go something like this: Defense, We have established the sequence of events: 1. Jesus nailed to the cross 2. Removed from the cross after an unusually short time and presumed dead by reason of the "poke by a spear test". 3. Placed in the tomb. 4. Next day the tomb is found �open� and the body of Jesus is missing. 5. Several days after the body is missing there are eyewitnesses that testify having seen Jesus walking the streets. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, can there be any clearer case of resurrection. The defense rests. Prosecution: It is not necessary to dispute the facts presented by my esteemed college. I shall accept them as they are, but I would like to present to the court that the most reasonable explanation is that Jesus did not die on the cross and was rescued by his followers. I also submit that due to the very short time on the cross and the unreliable nature of the presumption of death by use of the "poke with at spear" test. That fraud may have been involved, with Jesus working with accomplices to fake his death for the purposes of avoiding punishment and to deceive his followers into to thinking that he was the deity. If Jesus were the deity and wished to provide better proof to his followers of this, it should have been possible for the body to remain in the tomb and still have Jesus make an appearance after death to his followers. The prosecution rests. Starboy

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.