Recently, a certain proven heretic has gotten so desperate in his attempts
to smear me has gone completely into the realm of absurdity by falsely
claiming that I deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ (you can see
what I believe specifically on an area of my own website
[http://www.nettally.com/saints/affirmat.html]
where I have my personal
affirmation of faith). Quite the contrary, I know that Jesus Christ was
bodily resurrected because the Bible is clear as crystal on the topic. God
warned us how wicked and evil these self-condemned individuals are (Titus
3:11). I've not only pointed out scriptures showing conclusively that the
Bible teaches Jesus' resurrection was indeed bodily (as opposed to the
Jehovah's Witnesses erroneous belief that He was only spiritually
resurrected) but I have posted excellent sermons (I'm adding the article
below by John Ankerberg & John Weldon) by Christian theologians who also
show this Biblical fact. It's not surprising how wicked heretics, radical
atheists, etc. are in their words and deed as well as how dishonest they
become in regards to Christians and Christianity. We, as Christians, need
to
pray for them in hope their hearts will be softened and they will turn to
Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
The Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus Christ
by Dr. John Ankerberg & Dr. John Weldon
Part 1 -- Can It Persuade Skeptics?
Among the religions of the world, Christianity is unique in many ways. One
area of uniqueness concerns the evidence sup****ting its basic claims. As
lawyer, theologian, and philosopher Dr. John Warwick Montgomery points
out,
"The historic Christian claim differs qualitatively from the claims of all
other world religions at the epistemological point: on the issue of
testability."1 In other words, only Christianity stakes its claim to
truthfulness on historical events open to critical investigation. And only
this explains the number of conversions by skeptics throughout history.
Indeed, other religions in the world are believed in despite the lack of
genuine evidence for their truth claims; only Christianity can claim
credibility because of such evidence. Regrettably, what is often
overlooked
in the field of comparative religion today is that no genuinely
historical/objective evidence exists for the foundational religious claims
of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, or any religion other than Christianity.2 As
scientist, Christian apologist and biblical commentator Dr. Henry Morris
observes, "As a matter of fact, the entire subject of evidences is almost
exclusively the domain of Christian evidences. Other religions depend on
subjective experience and blind faith, tradition and opinion. Christianity
stands or falls upon the objective reality of gigantic supernatural events
in history and the evidences therefore. This fact in itself is an evidence
of its truth."3
Evidence is defined in the Oxford American Dictionary as, "1) anything
that
establishes a fact or gives reason for believing something, 2) statements
made or objects produced in a law court as proof or to sup****t a case."
One
of the most interesting evidences for the truth of Christianity and, in
particular, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, is the testimony of former
skeptics, many of whom attempted to disprove Christian faith. In this
article we will supply several examples. We hope this will not only be an
encouragement for Christians to take their faith seriously, but that it
will
also spur non-Christians to earnestly examine the claims of Christ on
their
own lives.
In the mid-eighteenth century, Lord George Lyttelton (a member of
Parliament
and Commissioner of the Treasury) and Gilbert West, Esq., went to Oxford.
There, they were determined to attack the very basis of Christianity.
Lyttelton set out to prove that Saul of Tarsus was never really converted
to
Christianity, and West intended to demonstrate that Jesus never really
rose
from the dead. Each had planned to do a painstaking job, taking a year to
establish his case. But as they proceeded, they eventually concluded that
Christianity was true. Both became Christians.
West eventually wrote Observations on the History and Evidences of the
Resurrection of Jesus Christ (1747). George Lyttelton wrote a lengthy text
titled The Conversion of St. Paul (rpt. 1929). Their correspondence back
and
forth, showing their surprise at the quality of the evidence, can be found
in any university microfilm library. West became totally convinced of the
truth of the Resurrection, and Lyttelton of the genuine conversion of
Saint
Paul on the basis of it. For example, Lyttelton wrote to West in 1761,
"Sir,
in a late conversation we had together upon the subject of the Christian
religion, I told you that besides all the proofs of it which may be drawn
from the prophecies of the Old Testament, from the necessary connection it
has with the whole system of the Jewish religion, from the miracles of
Christ, and from the evidence given of his reflection by all the other
apostles, I thought the conversion and apostle****p of Saint Paul alone,
duly
considered, was of itself a demonstration sufficient to prove Christianity
a
divine revelation."4
In the 1930s a rationalistic English journalist named Frank Morison
attempted to discover the "real" Jesus Christ. He was convinced that
Christ's
"history rested upon very insecure foundations"-largely because of the
influence of the rationalistic higher criticism so prevalent in his day.5
Further, he was dogmatically opposed to the miraculous elements in the
Gospels. But he was nevertheless fascinated by the person of Jesus, who
was
to him "an almost legendary figure of purity and noble manhood."6
Morison decided to take the crucial "last phase" in the life of Christ and
"to strip it of its overgrowth of primitive beliefs and dogmatic
suppositions, and to see this supremely great Person as he really was.. It
seemed to me that if I could come at the truth why this man died a cruel
death at the hands of the Roman Power, how he himself regarded the matter,
and especially how he behaved under the test, I should be very near to the
true solution of the problem."7
But the book that Morison ended up writing was not the one he intended. He
proceeded to write one of the most able defenses of the Resurrection of
Christ in our time, Who Moved the Stone?
Giovanni Papini was one of the foremost Italian intellects of his period,
an
atheist and vocal enemy of the Church and self-appointed debunker of
religion. But he became converted to faith in Christ and in 1921 penned
his
Life of Christ, stunning most of his friends and admirers.8
The Cambridge scholar C. S. Lewis, a former atheist, was converted to
Christianity on the basis of the evidence, according to his text Surprised
by Joy. He recalls, "I thought I had the Christians 'placed' and disposed
of
forever." But, "A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be
too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere-'Bibles laid open,
millions of surprises,' as Herbert says, 'Fine nets and stratagems.' God
is,
if I may say it, very unscrupulous."9
But C. S. Lewis became a Christian because the evidence was compelling and
he could not escape it. Even against his will he was "brought in kicking,
struggling, resentful, and darting [my] eyes in every direction for a
chance
of escape." The God "whom I so earnestly desired not to meet" became His
Lord and Savior.10 His book on Christian evidences, Mere Christianity, is
considered a classic and has been responsible for converting thousands to
the faith, among them the keen legal mind of former skeptic and Watergate
figure Charles Colson, author of Born Again.
As a pre-law student, Josh McDowell was also a skeptic of Christianity and
believed that every Christian had two minds: one was lost while the other
was out looking for it. Eventually challenged to intellectually
investigate
the Christian truth claims, and thinking this a farce, he accepted the
challenge and "as a result, I found historical facts and evidence about
Jesus Christ that I never knew existed."11 He eventually wrote a number of
im****tant texts in defense of Christianity, among them Evidence That
Demands
a Verdict, More Evidence That Demands a Verdict, More Than a Carpenter and
Daniel in the Lion's Den.
Dr. Gary Habermas was raised a Christian. But he soon questioned his
faith.
He concluded that while the Resurrection might be believed, he personally
doubted it and was skeptical that any evidence for it was really
convincing.
But after critical examination, it was the evidence that brought him
around
and he concluded the Resurrection was an established fact of history.12 He
proceeded to write four im****tant books in defense of the Resurrection:
Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus; The Resurrection of Jesus: A
Rational Inquiry; The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic; and Did Jesus
Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate.
As a brilliant philosophy student at Cornell University, John Warwick
Montgomery was a convinced skeptic when it came to Christianity. But he,
too, was challenged to investigate the evidence for Christianity. As a
result, he became converted. He recalls, "I went to the university as a
'garden-variety' 20th century pagan. And as a result of being forced, for
intellectual integrity's sake, to check out this evidence, I finally came
around."13 He confessed that had it not been for a committed undergraduate
student who continued to challenge him to really examine the evidence, he
would never have believed: "I thank God that he cared enough to do the
reading to become a good apologist because if I hadn't had someone like
that
I don't know if I would have become a Christian."14
Montgomery went on to graduate from Cornell University with distinction in
philosophy, Phi Beta Kappa. Then he went on to earn the Ph.D. from the
University of Chicago, a second doctorate in theology from the University
of
Strasbourg, France, plus seven additional graduate degrees in theology,
law,
library science and other fields. He has written over 125 scholarly
journal
articles, plus 40 books, many of them defending Christian faith against
skeptical views. He has held numerous prestigious appointments, is a
founding member of the World Association of Law Professors, a member of
the
American Society of International Law and is honored in Who's Who in
America, Who's Who in American Law, The Directory of American Scholars,
International Scholars' Directory, Who's Who in France, Who's Who in
Europe,
and Who's Who in the World. There are many individuals with the kind of
background and philosophical premises as Dr. Montgomery. They simply do
not
believe in Christianity apart from sufficient evidence.
Among great literary writers, few can match the brilliance of famous
author
Malcolm Muggeridge. He, too, was once a skeptic of Christianity. But near
the end of his life he became fully convinced of the truth of the
Resurrection of Christ, writing a book acclaimed by critics, Jesus: The
Man
Who Lives (1975). He wrote, "The coming of Jesus into the world is the
most
stupendous event in human history.." and "What is unique about Jesus is
that, on the testimony and in the experience of innumerable people, of all
sorts and conditions, of all races and nationalities from the simplest and
most primitive to the most sophisticated and cultivated, he remains
alive."
Muggeridge concludes, "That the Resurrection happened. seems to be
indubitably true" and "Either Jesus never was or he still is.. with the
utmost certainty, I assert he still is."15
The famous scholar and archaeologist, Sir William Ramsay, was educated at
Oxford and a Professor at both Oxford and Cambridge. He received gold
medals
from Pope Leo XII, the University of Pennsylvania, the Royal Geographical
Society, the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, and was knighted in
1906.
He was once a skeptic of Christianity, convinced that the Bible was
fraudulent.
"He had spent years deliberately preparing himself for the announced task
of
heading an exploration expedition into Asia Minor and Palestine, the home
of
the Bible, where he would 'dig up the evidence' that the Book was the
product of ambitious monks, and not the Book from heaven it claimed to be.
He regarded the weakest spot in the whole New Testament to be the story of
Paul's travels. These had never been thoroughly investigated by one on the
spot. Equipped as no other man had been, he went to the home of the Bible.
Here he spent fifteen years literally 'digging for the evidence.' Then in
1896 he published a large volume, Saint Paul the Traveler and the Roman
Citizen.
"The book caused a furor of dismay among the skeptics of the world. Its
attitude was utterly unexpected because it was contrary to the announced
intention of the author years before.. for twenty years more, book after
book from the same author came from the press, each filled with additional
evidence of the exact, minute truthfulness of the whole New Testament as
tested by the spade on the spot. The evidence was so overwhelming that
many
infidels announced their repudiation of their former unbelief and accepted
Christianity. And these books have stood the test of time, not one having
been refuted, nor have I found even any attempt to refute them."16
Ramsay's own archaeological findings convinced him of the reliability of
the
Bible and the truth of what it taught. In his The Bearing of Recent
Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament and other books, he
shows why he came to conclude that, e.g., "Luke's history is unsurpassed
in
respect of its trustworthiness" and that "Luke is a historian of the first
rank.. In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest
of historians."17
One of the greatest classical scholars of our century, the outstanding
authority on Homer, Dr. John A. Scott, Professor of Greek at Northwestern
University for some 40 years, at one time president of the American
Philosophical Association as well as president of the Classical
Association
of the Midwest and South, wrote a book at the age of seventy, concluding a
lifetime of ripened convictions, We Would See Jesus. He, too, was
convinced
that Luke was an accurate historian: "Luke was not only a doctor and
historian, but he was one of the world's greatest men of letters. He wrote
the clearest and the best Greek written in that century."18
Here we have two of the greatest intellects of recent time (Ramsay and
Scott), among many that could be cited, vouching for the historical
accuracy
and integrity of the Apostle Luke, who wrote not only the Gospel of Luke,
but the Book of Acts as well. In the latter book he claimed that the
Resurrection of Christ had been established "by many convincing proofs"
(Acts 1:3). It is only by means of such convincing proofs that skeptics
such
as the above individuals could have ever been converted in the first
place.
Indeed, the entire history of Christianity involves the conversion of
skeptics to Christian faith.
Unfortunately, however, there are also plenty of scholars who have the
evidence laid out clearly before them and still do not believe. For
example,
Michael Grant, a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, Professor of
Humanity
at Edinburgh University, and President and Vice Chancellor of the Queens
University, Belfast, holds doctorates from Cambridge, Dublin and Belfast
and
is the author of numerous books, among them The Twelve Caesars, and The
Army
of the Caesars. In his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels,
he
fully admits, "But if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would
apply
to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and
plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed
found empty."19
But he does not believe in the Resurrection: "Who had taken the body?
There
is no way of knowing.. at all events, it was gone."20 Yet he proceeds to
show how the subsequent events of Christian history astonish the
historian,
"For by conquering the Roman Empire in the fourth century A.D.,
Christianity
had conquered the entire Western World, for century after century that lay
ahead. In a triumph that has been hailed by its advocates as miraculous,
and
must be regarded by historians, too, as one of the most astoni****ng
phenomena in the history of the world, the despised, reviled Galilean
became
the Lord of countless millions of people over the course of the 1900 years
and more between his age and ours."21 As we do***ented in our book on the
Resurrection, only the Resurrection of Christ can explain this.22
Still, perhaps if Dr. Grant had been both a historian and a lawyer, he
might
have better understood the reason for, in his words, "the most astoni****ng
phenomena in the history of the world." (In part two, we will examine what
some of the finest legal minds in history and today have concluded
concerning the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus and the truth of
Christianity.)
Obviously, if Christianity is true, it makes all the difference in the
world
whether we personally accept it or not. Indeed, for each of us, it makes
all
the difference between heaven and hell. As Jesus said, "For God so loved
the
world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him
should not perish, but have eternal life" (Jn. 3:16) and "For what will a
man be profited, if he gains the whole world, and forfeits his soul? Or
what
will a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matt. 16:26).
FOOTNOTES
1. John Warwick Montgomery, "The Jury Returns: A Juridicial Defense of
Christianity" in John Warwick Montgomery (ed.), Evidence For Faith:
Deciding
the God Question (Dallas: Probe/Word, 1991), p. 319.
2. e.g., cf., John Warwick Montgomery, "How Muslims Do Apologetics" in
Faith Founded on Fact (New York: Nelson, 1978); David Johnson, A Reasoned
Look at Asian Religions (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany, 1985); Stuart C.
Hackett,
Oriental Philosophy (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1979);
John
Weldon, Buddhism, (MA Thesis) on file at Simon Greenleaf University,
Anaheim, CA, and John Ankerberg and John Weldon, The Facts On Hinduism in
America and The Facts on Islam.
3. Henry Morris, Many Infallible Proofs (San Diego, CA: Master Books,
1982), p. 1.
4. American Antiquarian Society, Early American Imprints, No. 8909
(1639-1800 A.D.), p. 3.
5. Frank Morison, Who Moved the Stone? (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1969), pp., 9-10.
6. Ibid., p. 10.
7. Ibid., p. 11.
8. In Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, (San Bernardino,
CA:
Here's Life Publishers, rev. ed. 1979), p. 359.
9. C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World,
Inc.,
1955), pp. 175, 191.
10. Ibid., pp. 228-229.
11. McDowell, Evidence, p. 373.
12. Personal conversations, March 26-28, 1990.
13. The John Ankerberg Show, transcript of a debate between Dr. John
Warwick
Montgomery and John K. Naland, televised April 1990, p. 39.
14. John Warwick Montgomery, "Introduction to Apologetics" class notes,
Simon Greenleaf School of Law, Anaheim, CA, January 1986.
15. Malcolm Muggeridge, Jesus: The Man Who Lives (NY: Harper & Row, 1978),
pp. 7, 184, 191, emphasis added.
16. In McDowell, Evidence, p. 366.
17. William M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the
Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Bookhouse,
1959), p. 81, cf. his Luke the Physician, pp. 177-179, 222.
18. In W. J. Sparrow-Simpson, The Resurrection in Modern Thought, London,
1911, p. 405, from Wilbur M. Smith, Therefore Stand: Christian Evidences
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1972), p. 365.
19. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York:
Charles Schribner's Sons, 1977), p. 176.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid., pp. 190-191, emphasis added.
22. John Ankerberg, John Weldon, Do the Resurrection Accounts Conflict?
and
What Proof Is There that Jesus Rose from the Dead? (Chattanooga, TN:
Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, 1990).
Part 2: Could the Evidence Stand Cross-Examination in a Modern Court of
Law?
In Part I, we indicated that the historical evidence for the Resurrection
of
Christ was sufficient to convert even skeptics. In Part II, we will
examine
what leading lawyers have concluded about the evidence for Christ's
Resurrection.
In Acts 1:3, the historian Luke tells us that Jesus Christ was resurrected
from the dead by "many infallible proofs." The Greek en pollois tekmariois
is an expression which is defined in the lexicons as "decisive proof" and
indicates the strongest type of legal evidence. 1
Lawyers, of course, are expertly trained to deal in the matter of
evidence.
Skeptics can, if they wish, maintain that only the weak-minded would
believe
in the literal, physical Resurrection of Christ, but perhaps this only
reveals their own weak-mindedness when it comes to taking the evidence at
face value.
Lawyers are not weak-minded. Hundreds of lawyers are represented by The
National Christian Legal Society, The Rutherford Institute, Lawyers
Christian Fellow****p, Simon Greenleaf University, and other Christian law
organizations, schools and societies. Among their number are some of the
most respected lawyers in the country, men who have graduated from our
leading law schools and gone on to prominence in the world of law. The law
schools of Cornell, Harvard, Yale, Boston, New York University, University
of Southern California, Georgetown, University of Michigan, Northwestern,
Hastings College of Law at U.C. Berkeley, Loyola, and many others are all
represented.2
Among the Board of Reference or distinguished lecture****ps given at Dr.
Weldon's alma mater, Simon Greenleaf University, we could cite Samuel
Ericsson, J.D., Harvard Law School, Renatus J. Chytil, formerly a lecturer
at Cornell and an expert on Czechoslovakian law, Dr. John W.
Brabner-Smith,
Dean Emeritus of the International School of Law, Wa****ngton, D.C., and
Richard Colby, J.D., Yale Law School, with Twentieth Century Fox.3 All are
Christians who accept the Resurrection of Christ as a historical fact. In
actuality, the truth of the Resurrection can be determined by the very
reasoning used in law to determine questions of fact. (This procedure is
also true for establi****ng the historical reliability and accuracy of the
New Testament do***ents.)
So let us proceed with specific examples of noted legal testimony
concerning
the Resurrection.
Lord Darling, a former Lord Chief Justice in England, asserts: "In its
favor
as a living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and
negative, factual and cir***stantial, that no intelligent jury in the
world
could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true."4
John Singleton Copley (Lord Lyndhurst, 1772-1863) is recognized as one of
the greatest legal minds in British history. He was Solicitor General of
the
British government, Attorney General of Great Britain, three times the
High
Chancellor of England and elected High Steward of the University of
Cambridge. He challenges, "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell
you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down
yet."5
Hugo Grotius was a noted "jurist and scholar whose works are of
fundamental
im****tance in international law," according to the Encyclopedia
Britannica.
He wrote Latin elegies at the age of eight and entered Leiden University
at
eleven.6 Considered "the father of international law," he wrote The Truth
of
the Christian Religion (1627) in which he legally defended the historical
fact of the Resurrection.
J. N. D. Anderson, in the words of Armand Nicholi of the Harvard Medical
School (Christianity Today, March 29, 1968), is a scholar of international
repute, eminently qualified to deal with the subject of evidence. He is
one
of the world's leading authorities on Muslim law, Dean of the Faculty of
Law
at the University of London, Chairman of the Department of Oriental Law at
the School of Oriental and African Studies, and Director of the Institute
of
Advanced Legal Studies at the University of London.7 In Anderson's text,
Christianity: The Witness of History, he supplies the standard evidences
for
the Resurrection and asks, "How, then, can the fact of the resurrection be
denied?"8 Anderson further emphasizes, "Lastly, it can be asserted with
confidence that men and women disbelieve the Easter story not because of
the
evidence but in spite of it."9
Sir Edward Clark, K.C., observes:
As a lawyer, I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events
of the first Easter day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and
over
again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly
so
compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is
always
artless and disdains effect. The gospel evidence for the resurrection is
of
this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as a testimony of
truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate.10
Irwin H. Linton was a Wa****ngton, D.C. lawyer who argued cases before the
U.S. Supreme Court. In A Lawyer Examines the Bible, he challenges his
fellow
lawyers "by every acid test known to the law.to examine the case for the
Bible just as they would any im****tant matter submitted to their
professional attention by a client.."11 He believes that the evidence for
Christianity is "overwhelming" and that at least "three independent and
converging lines of proof," each of which "is conclusive in itself,"
establish the truth of the Christian faith.12 Linton observed that "the
logical, historical.proofs of.Christianity are so indisputable that I have
found them to arrest the surprised attention of just about every man to
whom
I have presented them.."13 He further argues the Resurrection "is not only
so established that the greatest lawyers have declared it to be the best
proved fact of all history, but it is so sup****ted that it is difficult to
conceive of any method or line of proof that it lacks which would make
[it]
more certain."14 And that, even among lawyers, "he who does not accept
wholeheartedly the evangelical, conservative belief in Christ and the
Scriptures has never read, has forgotten, or never been able to weigh-and
certainly is utterly unable to refute-the irresistible force of the
***ulative evidence upon which such faith rests.."15
He concluded the claims of Christian faith are so well established by such
a
variety of independent and converging proofs that "it has been said again
and again by great lawyers that they cannot but be regarded as proved
under
the strictest rules of evidence used in the highest American and English
courts."16
Simon Greenleaf was the author of the classic three-volume text, A
Treatise
on the Law of Evidence (1842), which, according to Dr. Wilbur Smith "is
still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire
literature on legal procedure."17 Greenleaf himself is considered one of
the
greatest authorities on common-law evidence in Western history. The London
Law Journal wrote of him in 1874, "It is no mean honor to America that her
schools of jurisprudence have produced two of the finest writers and best
esteemed legal authorities in this century-the great and good man, Judge
Story, and his eminent and worthy associate Professor Greenleaf. Upon the
existing law of evidence (by Greenleaf) more light has shown from the New
World than from all the lawyers who adorn the courts of Europe."18
Further, "Dr. Simon Greenleaf was one of the greatest legal minds we have
had in this country. He was the famous Royal Professor of Law at Harvard
University, and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of
Law
in the same university. H. W. H. Knotts in the Dictionary of American
Biography says of him: "To the efforts of Story and Greenleaf is ascribed
the rise of the Harvard Law School to its eminent position among the legal
schools of the United States.". Greenleaf concluded that the Resurrection
of
Christ was one of the best sup****ted events in history, according to the
laws of legal evidence administered in courts of justice.19
In his book Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence
Administered in Courts of Justice, Greenleaf writes:
All that Christianity asks of men.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 [to the Resurrection] be
compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and
cir***stances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a
court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being
subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently
believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability and
truth.20
Lord Caldecote, Lord Chief Justice of England, observed that an
"overwhelming case for the Resurrection could be made merely as a matter
of
strict evidence"21 and that "His Resurrection has led me as often as I
have
tried to examine the evidence to believe it as a fact beyond dispute.."22
(cf., Thomas Sherlock's Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of
Jesus
Christ, which places the Resurrection in a legally argued forum and in the
words of lawyer Irwin Linton, "will give anyone so reading it the
comfortable assurance that he knows the utmost that can be said against
the
proof of the central fact of our faith and also how utterly every such
attack can be met and answered."23 At the end of the legal battle one
understands why, "The jury returned a verdict in favor of the testimony
establi****ng the fact of Christ's resurrection."24)
But lawyers familiar with the evidence could do the same today either for
themselves or an impartial jury. Although admissibility rules vary by
state
and no lawyer can guarantee the decision of any jury (no matter how
persuasive the evidence), an abundance of lawyers will testify today that
the Resurrection would stand in the vast majority of law courts.
In conclusion, in these two installments, we have shown that both those
who
were committed skeptics and those who are expertly trained to sift
evidence
have declared, on the basis of the evidence, that the Resurrection of
Jesus
Christ is a historical fact. Those who ignore the evidence do so at their
own risk.
FOOTNOTES
1. Joseph Thayer, Thayer's Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1982), p. 617; James Hope Moulton, George
Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the
Papyri
and Other Non-Literary Sources (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 628;
Spiros Zodhiates, The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker,
1985), p. 71; Kurt Aland, et. al., The Greek New Testament (New York:
American Bible Society, 1968), p. 179.
2. See the Simon Greenleaf University 1989-1990 and later catalogues.
3. Ibid.
4. In Michael Green, Man Alive! (Chicago, IL: InterVarsity Christian
Fellow****p, 1969), p. 54.
5. In Wilbur M. Smith, Therefore Stand: Christian Apologetics (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker, 1972), p. 425, cf., p. 584.
6. q.v., "Hugo Grotius," Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, Vol. 4, p.
753 and references.
7. In Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, (San Bernardino,
CA:
Here's Life Publishers, rev. ed. 1979), pp. 201-202.
8. J. N. D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History, (London:
Tyndale Press, 1970), p. 90.
9. Ibid., p. 105.
10. In John Stott, Basic Christianity (London: InterVarsity Fellow****p,
1969), p. 47.
11. Irwin H. Linton, A Lawyer Examines the Bible: A Defense of the
Christian
Faith (San Diego: Creation Life Publishers, 1977), pp. 13, 196.
12. Ibid., p. 192.
13. Ibid., p. 120.
14. Ibid., p. 50.
15. Ibid., p. 45, cf., pp. 16-17.
16. Ibid., p. 16.
17. Smith, Therefore Stand, p. 423.
18. Linton, p. 36.
19. In Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale/Living
Books, 1983), p. 97.
20. In John Warwick Montgomery, The Law Above the Law (Minneapolis, MN:
Bethany, 1975), pp. 132-133. (Greenleaf's Testimony of the Evangelists is
reprinted as an appendix).
21. In Linton, p. XXIV.
22. Ibid., p. XXV.
23. Ibid., p. 242; Sherlock's text is reproduced herein.
24. Ibid., p. 277.
|
