« Scripture and the Gospel (Video) | Main | The Problem of Evil: A New Strategy »

June 13, 2011

Comments

Vincent Bugliosi sounds like a smug clown.

For anyone interested in reading a defense of Christianity from a legal perspective see the following articles:


1. The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity by John Warwick Montgomery: http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm

2. The Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus by Thomas Sherlock (1729): http://www.lydiamcgrew.com/SherlockTrial.htm

3. The Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html


On page 64 of the book (Divinity of Doubt: The God Question), Vicent Bugliosi blunders into evolution. I paraphrase: If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

Now there's no shame in making this mistake / wondering about this question. But Bugliosi needed to look it up instead of 'asking it' in his book. This is an actual FAQ and a very basic one. If this is live question for you then you don't understand much about evolution.

What's worse, he seems to have known he needed to look up the question because he introduces the subject with: "What I'm about to say may not be correct..."

IS THERE AND EDITOR IN THE HOUSE???

When nearer his own field Bugliosi is fine. Paraphrasing again: If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are eyewitnesses can I cross examine them?

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein. The whole idea of a trial for the truth of Christianity is pretty silly. But if you must do it then at least try to do it right: the NT would be inadmissible hearsay in a trial.

RonH


Of course there are numerous exceptions to the admission of hearsay in a court of law. One of these exception is the ‘Ancient Documents’ rule. The New Testament documents would be admitted as evidence under this exception. As Professor Montgomery has noted, “…ancient documents [over 30 years of age] will be received as competent evidence if they are “fair on their face” (i.e., offer no internal evidence of tampering) and have been maintained in “reasonable custody” (i.e., their preservation has been consistent with their content). He [Greenleaf] concluded that the competence of the New Testament documents would be established in any court of law.”

It should be noted that just because a court would allow these documents to be presented as evidence under the ‘Ancient Documents’ rule does not mean that everything contained in them would be granted as true. The defense would raise objections as to the trustworthiness of the testimony and the prosecution would attempt to counter. Such a trial would probably resemble what we see in modern day debates over the reliability of the New Testament documents and the testimony to the Resurrection of Jesus with both sides presenting their best arguments.

Am I wrong to suggest that Man's law is not the same as God's law? One of the foundations of Christianity is faith. The court of Law does not operate under that philosophy.

The comments to this entry are closed.