What did Simon Greenleaf (founder of Harvard School of Law) say about the resurrection of Jesus?

Answer 1

I don't know specifically what he said but I do know that he set out to diprove the "myth" of Christ and his resurrection. He found that he could not do it, that the witnesses of the Gospels were reliable.

Answer 2

You make Harvard School of Law sound like Harvard School of Gods.
I guess if Simon Greenleaf was a truly brilliant person and a lawyer, he would have done a thorough examination of the Bible before utterring or writing any statements about his belief in a Resurrection of Jesus.
1. Mr. Greenstreet would have known that the Sadducees were those who had rejected the belief in the Resurrection, and they were the Lawyers of the day and they were the Biblical Jews who wanted to get rid of Christ, and they went at every opportunity to prove Christ an impostor.
2. Mr. Greenstreet would have known that the two pre-trials of Christ were abandoned because the witnesses could not agree, after which he was taken to the Romans, and this is something that Mr. Greenleaf would have thrown out of the Court before it could get there, because the Biblical Jews would have had to come to the Court with a Guilty verdict, and they were therefore in contempt of Court and would have been penalised for the comtempt.
3. Mr. Greenstreet would have seen the hand of the rejectors of the Resurrection and the mockery of the Resurrection in a one-man Resurrection.
4. Mr. Greenstreet would have seen that, in the Red Print Version of the Bible in which the words of Jesus Christ are printed in Red, the statement in Matthew 27:63, "After three days I will rise again." is printed in Black and not in Red, so the Bible is telling us that he never made such a claim.
5. Mr. Greenstreet would have laughed at a risen Jesus with the visible wounds in his hands and in his side, and all the little cuts and bruises (which are not mentioned by the way) as another mockery of the Resurrection by the Sadducees.
6. Mr. Green street would have found the evidence in the tomb of two shrouds that were used to fake a burial of 100 lbs of aloes and myrrh, with one shroud made to look like the head and the other the body, not the corpse.
7 Mr. Greenstreet would have advised that any intelligent human being who spends the time to examine the Bible will find an abundance of evidence to show that Christ was innocent and set free by the Romans and that only two thieves were crucified, and that both thieves were identified with the inscription on their crosses naming each of them as "Jesus King of the Jews", and that they were left on their crosses after their legs were broken and the Sabbath was broken and the curse with which the Biblical Jews cursed themselves and their Children can be seen to be a reality even today.
Finally, Mr. Greenstreet would have known that the whole Jesus Christ thing is a hoax that needs to be examined and exposed. Thank You.

Answer 3

Can't believe I'm being forced to answer this...ok...three things:

1) He did this in the late 19th century...we've come a little ways since then, huh? Wonder if he'd still argue the same in a more cynical society...

2) Lawyers LOVE to make cases...and they do it well...that's their job...how many lawyers make arguments and end up making people believe something that didn't happen...or did, when it didn't?

3) HE WASN'T THERE...I don't care how credible people think that the apostles are or were- the fact is that all we have for evidence is some old books written by people that had a stake in what was in the story...and then ratified by men with even more of a stake in the story...bottom line, he couldn't have all of the facts, and the authors of the gospels had every reason to lie...

Now this doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't resurrected, it just means that there's no way anyone can prove or disprove it 1900 years later...