this one looks cool. It's interactive. You can pick the scientific area you have trouble connecting to God.
Reasons To Believe : Where Modern Science & Faith Converge
Reasons To Believe : Where Modern Science & Faith Converge
Do you even have conversations with atheists?
- Thread starter thecreationtutor
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Fact or Fiction?
[FONT=Arial, Times, Roman]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:
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Times, Roman]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!(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).
[/FONT]
RootsWeb's WorldConnect Project: My Family Tree
Simon Greenleaf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1833, Greenleaf was named to the Royall professorship, and in 1846 succeeded Judge Joseph Story as Dane professor of law at Harvard University. Greenleaf contributed extensively to the development of Harvard Law School, including expansion of the Harvard Law Library. He was retained as chief counsel by the Warren Bridge group in the US Supreme Court case Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge 36 U.S. 420 (1837),[SUP][1][/SUP] where the case laid down the rule that public contracts must be construed in favor of states.
Greenleaf's principal work of legal scholarship is a Treatise on the Law of Evidence (3 vols., 1842–1853), and which remained a standard textbook in American law throughout the Nineteenth century. He also published A Full Collection of Cases Overruled, Denied, Doubted, or Limited in their Application, taken from American and English Reports (1821). He prepared and published Reports of Cases Argued and Determined by the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Maine in nine volumes (1820–1832). He revised for the American courts William Cruise's Digest of Laws respecting Real Property (3 vols., 1849–1850). Greenleaf was also the author of A Brief Inquiry into the Origin and Principles of Free Masonry (1820), and wrote a memoir of the life of his colleague Joseph Story - A Discourse Commemorative of the Life and Character of the Hon. Joseph Story (1845).
Simon Greenleaf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1833, Greenleaf was named to the Royall professorship, and in 1846 succeeded Judge Joseph Story as Dane professor of law at Harvard University. Greenleaf contributed extensively to the development of Harvard Law School, including expansion of the Harvard Law Library. He was retained as chief counsel by the Warren Bridge group in the US Supreme Court case Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge 36 U.S. 420 (1837),[SUP][1][/SUP] where the case laid down the rule that public contracts must be construed in favor of states.
Greenleaf's principal work of legal scholarship is a Treatise on the Law of Evidence (3 vols., 1842–1853), and which remained a standard textbook in American law throughout the Nineteenth century. He also published A Full Collection of Cases Overruled, Denied, Doubted, or Limited in their Application, taken from American and English Reports (1821). He prepared and published Reports of Cases Argued and Determined by the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Maine in nine volumes (1820–1832). He revised for the American courts William Cruise's Digest of Laws respecting Real Property (3 vols., 1849–1850). Greenleaf was also the author of A Brief Inquiry into the Origin and Principles of Free Masonry (1820), and wrote a memoir of the life of his colleague Joseph Story - A Discourse Commemorative of the Life and Character of the Hon. Joseph Story (1845).
Yes, Simon Greenleaf was an important Nineteenth century attorney and legal writer.
But he wasn't an atheist; he was a life-long Christian apologist. His analysis of the Gospels was not a turning point that converted him; it was another example of Christian apologetics where he defended what he already believed.
Are you willing to admit that you were deceived about Simon Greenleaf and that you won't make these inaccurate claims about him in the future?
But he wasn't an atheist; he was a life-long Christian apologist. His analysis of the Gospels was not a turning point that converted him; it was another example of Christian apologetics where he defended what he already believed.
Are you willing to admit that you were deceived about Simon Greenleaf and that you won't make these inaccurate claims about him in the future?
I was raised in a catholic home. I was not religious. You have proven he had ministry in his family and he joined a committee before a book came out. The book however would have come after he discovered the facts thereof (Its why we write books, we know we have something to write) I have found more writings claiming he had been an athiest than I have found otherwise so no I do not concede that I have been deceived in any way.
He wrote apologetics tracts for the American Tract society in the 1930s.
A bunch of modern apologists repeat the lie that he was an atheist, and that's good enough for you. I've showed you the evidence that he was a committed Episcopalian and active church and committee member decades before his Gospel analysis (and years before he became a law professor at all), and you simply hand-wave them away because they don't best fit what you would like to believe.
I will ask you again - do you have any historical evidence or other writings to indicate that Greenleaf was a converted atheist or sought to disprove the resurrection?
Does the actual truth of your claims matter to you at all, or do you consider "lying for the cause" an acceptable activity?
A bunch of modern apologists repeat the lie that he was an atheist, and that's good enough for you. I've showed you the evidence that he was a committed Episcopalian and active church and committee member decades before his Gospel analysis (and years before he became a law professor at all), and you simply hand-wave them away because they don't best fit what you would like to believe.
I will ask you again - do you have any historical evidence or other writings to indicate that Greenleaf was a converted atheist or sought to disprove the resurrection?
Does the actual truth of your claims matter to you at all, or do you consider "lying for the cause" an acceptable activity?
decades before his analysis? how do you know when his analysis was? born in 1783 you say he was on a committee in the 30s okay so he was 50 years old... proving what? 50 years is a long time to suggest he was always something. Here are more people, similar situations
Sir Lionel Luckhoo (1914-1997) is considered one of the greatest lawyers in British history. He's recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "World's Most Successful Advocate," with 245 consecutive murder acquittals. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II -- twice. Luckhoo declared:
Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, The Case for Christ, which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ...[SUP]4[/SUP]
As a "lone juror," I sat quiet in my chair...
As jurors often do in the jury room, I asked to return once again to a provoking piece of evidence...
Continue Your Examination Now! [SUP]1[/SUP] Knott, The Dictionary of American Biography, back cover of The Testimony of the Evangelists.
[SUP]2[/SUP] Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence, Kregel Classics, 1995, Backcover.
[SUP]3[/SUP] Sir Lionel Luckhoo, The Question Answered: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Luckhoo Booklets, back page. Sir Lionel Luckhoo Booklets.
[SUP]4[/SUP] Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998, 18.
my problem is that you are focusing all of your attention on something that may or may not even be true, whether or not he was an atheist first. Look at what they are saying man!
Sir Lionel Luckhoo (1914-1997) is considered one of the greatest lawyers in British history. He's recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "World's Most Successful Advocate," with 245 consecutive murder acquittals. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II -- twice. Luckhoo declared:
- I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.[SUP]3[/SUP]
Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, The Case for Christ, which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ...[SUP]4[/SUP]
As a "lone juror," I sat quiet in my chair...
As jurors often do in the jury room, I asked to return once again to a provoking piece of evidence...
Continue Your Examination Now! [SUP]1[/SUP] Knott, The Dictionary of American Biography, back cover of The Testimony of the Evangelists.
[SUP]2[/SUP] Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence, Kregel Classics, 1995, Backcover.
[SUP]3[/SUP] Sir Lionel Luckhoo, The Question Answered: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Luckhoo Booklets, back page. Sir Lionel Luckhoo Booklets.
[SUP]4[/SUP] Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998, 18.
my problem is that you are focusing all of your attention on something that may or may not even be true, whether or not he was an atheist first. Look at what they are saying man!
Last edited:
all of the evidence suggests that Greenleaf was challenged to utilize the techniques in his book to disprove the resurrection. Got to go. Thanks for the conversation
http://www.josh.org/wp-content/uploads/PDF/resources-josh_talks-evidence_for_the_resurrection-2.pdf
Is Simon Greenleaf Still Relevant? - CSI
http://www.josh.org/wp-content/uplo...alks-evidence_for_the_resurrection-2.pdfSIMON GREENLEAF DIED October 6, 1853. Born on December 5, 1783, Greenleaf was an agnostic, some say atheist, who believed the resurrection of Jesus Christ was either a hoax or a myth. - See more at: Is Simon Greenleaf Still Relevant? - CSI
http://www.josh.org/wp-content/uploads/PDF/resources-josh_talks-evidence_for_the_resurrection-2.pdf
Is Simon Greenleaf Still Relevant? - CSI
http://www.josh.org/wp-content/uplo...alks-evidence_for_the_resurrection-2.pdfSIMON GREENLEAF DIED October 6, 1853. Born on December 5, 1783, Greenleaf was an agnostic, some say atheist, who believed the resurrection of Jesus Christ was either a hoax or a myth. - See more at: Is Simon Greenleaf Still Relevant? - CSI
Actually, no evidence says that. I asked you to provide some, and you danced around the question rather than just admit that Greenleaf's atheism appears to be completely made up by modern apologists.
People ask me why I'm so disdainful of apologetics, and this is a big part of why - the people who engage in them have zero concern for whether or not the things they are saying are actually true. I will never trust someone to tell me about God when they don't have any intellectual integrity or respect for the truth.
People ask me why I'm so disdainful of apologetics, and this is a big part of why - the people who engage in them have zero concern for whether or not the things they are saying are actually true. I will never trust someone to tell me about God when they don't have any intellectual integrity or respect for the truth.