Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Understanding the RULES of EVIDENCE. Greenleaf or reznwerks

Reznwerk or Simon Greenleaf - who would you trust to understand the RULES of EVIDENCE?

  • reznwerks

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Neither - I understand the RULES of EVIDENCE better than both of them

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1
G

Gary

Guest
Proving reznwerks wrong (again and again...)

Reznwerks has said the following several times. Now that he is challenged, he again does not respond. I have therefore posted this question on a new thread. Let's see if he will run away again.....

reznwerks: "....As I said (several times) you don't have enough evidence in the Bible to take to court to make your case for your faith."

Gary: Wrong again. Are you qualified at all to make that statement?

Someone who has done a bit more research than you and is many times more qualified than you has done what you suggest. Here is the evidence:
  • How would the Gospels be regarded if they were subjected as evidence in a court of law? This fascinating question forms the basis for Simon Greenleaf's classic study of the rules of legal evidence as applied to the New Testament accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus.

    As Dane Professor of Law at Harvard University, Simon Greenleaf produced "the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure"(Knott, The Dictionary of American Biography). Applying the same rules of evidence administrated in courts of justice, Simon Greenleaf demonstrates the validity of the Gospels as trustworthy and authoritative historical accounts.

"The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Four Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence" by Simon Greenleaf

0825427479.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books




How qualified are you reznwerks?

.
 
Reznwerks vs Simon greenleaf

Reznwerks vs Simon Greenleaf - who would you trust?

Simon Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity.

But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.

Read more.... http://christjesus.us/greenleaf.html

.
 
Re: Reznwerks vs Simon greenleaf

Gary_Bee said:
Reznwerks vs Simon Greenleaf - who would you trust?

Simon Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity.

But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.

Read more.... http://christjesus.us/greenleaf.html

.
================
Believing as I said doesn't make it true. If as you say Greenleaf presented irrefutable evidence the whole world would know it. As I also said check your encyclopedea. It only uses the bible as reference and we don't know who wrote it or how many times it was copied.The bible in it's present form is full of errorrs that cannot be explained away unless you use a lot of "if" "maybes" "you must have faith" etc to make it real. The bottom line is that the gospels in desribing the most important claim and that is the resurrection sadly can't get its story straight. That "GARY BEE" is the issue.You can get all the people in the world with all the credentials there are and that sad fact is without the bible you have no evidence and the bible is no textbook. The whole world believed the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Unless your home school teacher didn't teach it both ideas were proven false a long time ago.
Now tell me WHY is this particular savior the REAL one when man has had experience with about 18 other saviors with that were born of a virgin. SOme were even crucified like Jesus. How many saviors do you think are out there? Jesus didn't write one word down. Do you think the apostles were walking alongside him like present day presidential biographers just waiting to write something notable down?LOL
Here Gary send Greenleaf this info and ask him to explain :

Why Are The Ancient Historians Silent About Jesus?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Richard Smith
Consider the following list. These are the historians and writers who DID live within Christ's alleged lifetime or within a hundred years of it, after the time:

Apollonius Persius
Appian Petronius
Arrian Phaedrus
Aulus Gellius Philo-Judaeus
Columella Phlegon
Damis Pliny the Elder
Dio Chrysostom Pliny the Younger
Dion Pruseus Plutarch
Epictetus Pompon Mela
Favorinus Ptolemy
Florus Lucius Quintilian
Hermogones Quintius Curtius
Josephus Seneca
Justus of Tiberius Silius Italicus
Juvenal Statius
Lucanus Suetonius
Lucian Tacitus
Lysias Theon of Smyran
Martial Valerius Flaccus
Paterculus Valerius Maximus
Pausanias

Yet, aside from two FORGED passages in the works of a Jewish writer mentioned above, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there isn't ANY mention of Jesus Christ. At all. Consider:
"Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacred occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place -- when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the rpesence of many witnesses ascended into heaven.
"These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, we unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.

"Justus of Tiberius was a native of Christ's own country, Galilee. He wrote a history covering this time of Christ's reputed existence. This work has perished, but Photius, a Christian scholar and critic of the ninth century, who was acquainted with it, says: 'He (Justus) makes not the least mention of the appearances of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did' (Photius' Bibliotheca, code 33).

"Josephus: Late in the first century, Josephus wrote his celebrated work, _The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews_, giving a history of his race from the earliest ages down to his own time. Modern versions of this work contain the following 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 received 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. (Book XVIII, Chapter iii, Section 3).'
"For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this passage as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to the divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery was never penned.
"Its language is Christian. Every line proclaims it the work of a Christian writer. 'If it be lawful to call him a man.' 'He was the Christ.' 'He appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.'

"These are the words of a Christian, a believer in the divinity of Christ. Josephus was a Jew, a devout believer in the Jewish faith -- the last man in the world to acknowledge the divinity of Christ. The inconsistency of this evidence was early recognized, and Abrose, writing in the generation succeeding its first appearance (360 A.D.), offers the following explanation, which only a theologican could frame:

"'If the Jews do not believe us, let them, at least, believe their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a great man, hath said this, and yet hath he spoken truth after such a manner; and so far was his mind wandered from the right way, that even he was not a believer as to what he himself said; but thus he spake, in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought it not lawful for him to deceive, while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart, and his perfidious intentiion.'
"Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus' work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly fourty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines."
-- The Christ, by John E. Remsburg, reprinted by Prometheus Books, New York, 1994, pages 171-3.

Here is where Christianity came from but you probably don't have the stomach to read it.
http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/


As to whether I am qualified or not that is not the issue in regards to "believing". What is apparant is that none are so blind as those who will not see. All the information I posted can be validated at any library. Any person that has not lost their ability to "rezn" can plainly see the folly of organized religion once they see what has gone on.
 
Your claim was "As I said (several times) you don't have enough evidence in the Bible to take to court to make your case for your faith."

I have shown that you were wrong. The question remains... what do YOU know about evidence and what constitutes evidence in a court case? :sad

P.S. I was an atheist for 30+ years.... so NOTHING you try and show me about Christianity has any effect at all. It only shows how much you still have to learn. :)

... but keep trying. We love defending our faith. It is logical and reasonable and historical. :wink:

.
 
case

Gary_Bee said:
Your claim was "As I said (several times) you don't have enough evidence in the Bible to take to court to make your case for your faith."

I have shown that you were wrong. The question remains... what do YOU know about evidence and what constitutes evidence in a court case? :sad

P.S. I was an atheist for 30+ years.... so NOTHING you try and show me about Christianity has any effect at all. It only shows how much you still have to learn. :)

... but keep trying. We love defending our faith. It is logical and reasonable and historical. :wink:

.

Evidence should come from reliable sources. They should be verifiable. There should be more than one reliable source especially for fantastic claims. The bible quoting itself just doesn't cut it. The evidence should be first hand if possible. THERE IS NONE OF THIS FOR THE BIBLE. Gary let me put it this way and maybe, just maybe you will get it. Imagine yourself on trial for a particular crime. The judge is listening to the evidence presented against you. Well halfway through the trial a witness is testifying that he (she) heard from a friend who heard it from a friend that you did what you were accused of. On this heresay evidence you are convicted and sent to prison. That is what we have for the story of Jesus and the bible. We don't have first hand testimony, and we don't have credible witnesses. That should close the case Gary.
 
Evidence in the Bible

Enough evidence in the Bible?

reznwerks: "... As I said (several times) you don't have enough evidence in the Bible to take to court to make your case for your faith."

Gary: Reznwerks, your logic fails again. Your claim was that we don't have enough evidence in the Bible to take to court to make a case. That was EXACTLY what Simon Greenleaf did. He took the Bible (exactly like you requested) and made the case, using ALL his knowledge about evidence and the rules of evidence. He "made the case" using the Bible. That is exactly what you claimed could NOT be done. He did it. He found more than enough evidence in the Bible to build a case (using the rules of evidence) to be able to present the case.

As he is highly qualified to examine the Gospels using the Rules of Evidence, his conclusion must have a lot more weight than your little attempt to define what evidence SHOULD be.

The question STILL remains..... what are YOUR credentials to even imagine that YOU can define what the rules of evidence for an examination of the Gospels are?

Read more about Simon Greenleaf: http://www.geocities.com/gary_bee_za/bi ... enleaf.htm

.
 
More red herrings from reznwerks

More red herrings from reznwerks

Gary: reznwerks, I have already completely destroyed your other red herrings you have introduced into this thread:

(1) the "pagan origin" theory red herring

RedHerring.gif


I notice you failed (again) to respond to these posts and links
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 8632#68632
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 8633#68633
http://www.geocities.com/gary_bee_za/ch ... /pagan.htm

(2) the "list of historians" theory red herring

RedHerring.gif


Amateur skeptics (like reznwerks) like to pass lists around that they borrow from outdated and irrelevant sources written by kidney specialists; one of these is a list of writers contemporary with Jesus who are alleged to have been mysteriously silent about him. You'll find this list repeated on dozens of skeptical sites (and in Freke and Gandy's Jesus Mysteries) with gloats and smiles stapled to it, but the ultimate source of the list is John Remsberg and his book, The Christ. While this long list of names may shazam the gullible ("Wow! Look at this long list of people who didn't mention Jesus!"), once you look at this list closely, you find several problems.....

Read on.... http://www.tektonics.org/remslist.html

(3) the "no non-Christian historians" theory red herring

RedHerring.gif


Again, your red herring fails to divert the discussion. The primary sources for the life of Christ are the four Gospels. However, there are considerable reports from non-Christian sources that supplement and confirm the Gospel accounts. These come largely from Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Samaritan sources of the first century.

In brief they inform us that: (1) Jesus was from Nazareth; (2) he lived a wise and virtuous life; (3) he was crucified in Palestine under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar at Passover time, being considered the Jewish king; (4) he was believed by his disciples to have been raised from the dead three days later; (5) his enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats they called “sorceryâ€Â; (6) his small band of disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading even as far as Rome; (7) his disciples denied polytheism, lived moral lives, and worshiped Christ as Divine. This picture confirms the view of Christ presented in the New Testament Gospels.

Read more....
http://www.geocities.com/gary_bee_za/jesus/secular.htm
http://www.geocities.com/gary_bee_za/je ... istian.htm

Try stick to the topic. Your attempts to sidetrack the thread by red herrings only shows that you cannot reason logically or that you are being deceptive (or both!).

Enjoy! Keep your cut-n-pastes coming... they only teach us more and INCREASE our faith when we realise how flimsy the attack on Christianity and the Bible actually is.
:-? :-?
 
Back
Top