What would happen if a court of today put the validity of Jesus Christ and the resurrection on trial?Christ would win. There is plenty of evidence that points to a Creator and that Creator communicated with us through His Word.
Jesus Christ came to die on a cross to take the punishment that we deserved in order to save us. In order to do this he had to be resurrected. So, were the eyewitnesses credible?
Simon Greenleaf, a principal founder of the Harvard Law School, in 1874 wrote a paper, available online, called "The testimony of the evangelists examined by the rules of evidence administrated in courts of justice" where he took Jesus and the Bible to trial.
His postulation was that the Bible follows the 'ancient documents rule' that "Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise"
Spoiler alert!
Greenleaf sums up his argument:
"All that Christianity asks of men on this subject, is, that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with the surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witnesses being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result,it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability and truth ... Either the men of Galilee were men of superlative wisdom, and extensive knowledge and experience, and of deeper skill in the arts of deception, than any and all others, before or after them, or they have truly stated the astonishing things which they saw and heard" (pp. 46 & 53).
If you were a jury member would you come to the same conclusion? As an atheist would you put aside your bias and rule properly according to the Law?
UPDATE 1/16/2009:
I took this from a legalese website discussing documents:
[section 491 mandates that the statement be given under oath, affirmation, or some other form of legally binding assertion, such as a statement at the bottom of an income tax return that the answers were given and the signature subscribed "under penalties of perjury." Although it may be morally reprehensible for a person to lie, no legal criminal sanction is imposed for lying until after a person has sworn to tell the truth. Hence, the State must allege and prove that the statement was given under oath or affirmation administered by an authorized person, or under some other form of legally binding assertion.]
In other words assertions are legally binding when said under oath.
I am willing to claim that God exists under oath, would anyone be willing to claim, under oath, that invisible pink hammers exists or the flying spaghetti Monster exists?
Using The Bible in God proofs is not circular reasoning and is the well-established way in which we establish the truth of understanding God. (Thanks, Kaitlyn)
Mere assertion of X (flying spaghetti monster) is not equal to adequate justification of X. (God)
bit.ly/OEvidence