A Case for Santa Claus....?

Question

In the movie *A Miracle on 34th St*. Kris Kringle was put on trial for saying he was Santa Claus.. The prosecutor said *thier is no such thing as Santa Claus* but when others spoke of what Kris Kringle did, it was determined he well could be Santa Claus..

OKAY....This was a beautiful fairy tale movie but it had a strong message one we can use to present a case for Jesus Christ..If Jesus did for humanity what he promised and how he changed people lives, if Jesus was put on trial today it would be determined just like Kris Kringle that he is who he says he is..

Now I don't mean to make this sound trivial because it surely isn't but just so Atheists might understand how someone could prove who they are in a court of law based on people's account..
Do you understand?

Answer 1

Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived and one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax so he originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity.

But this legal scholar and skeptic ended up concluding that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen and he determined that the evidences for Christ EXCEEDED the Rules for Evidence in a US Federal court.

His legal opinion on the circumstances under which ancient documents are considered authentic and admissable is also most enlightening but too lengthy to include here.

John Warwick Montgomery Professor of Law and Humanities at the University of Luton, England, cites a legal work on methods of exposing perjury, based on defects in the witness or the testimony. Montgomery then applies the test to the New Testament records:


Were the "apostolic witnesses" untrustworthy? e.g. pathological liars? No: they were simple, literal and direct.

Were they people unable to distinguish fact from fantasy? No: they said themselves that they were not (citing 2 Peter).

Did they have a motive to falsify (every perjurer has a motive)? No - Money or social acceptance are ruled out.

To please Jesus? No: Jesus taught them not to lie.

Is the testimony inconsistent or self- contradictory?
Although not verbatim the same, if they were the same it would point to collusion. The gospels are written from four different perspectives. No gospel was intended to be complete in itself. And duplications probably reflect actual duplicate events (e.g. cleansing of temple).

Also, the "unflattering manner [in which] the apostolic company picture themselves in these records" indicates that they are genuine. They have "the ring of truth."

Extra-biblical historical records and archaeology confirm the reliability of New Testament geography, chronology, and general history.

Misrepresentation is rarely successful "when a cross-examiner is at work." A false witness will surely be exposed in his fabrications, the more complicated story he must tell and the more elements involved. The New Testament witnesses "admittedly ... were never put on a literal witness stand," but they preached to many hostile audiences who undoubtedly cross-examined them, and were unable to expose their testimony as false.

Their Jewish audiences certainly would have exposed the claims that Jesus "fulfilled dozens of highly specific Old Testament prophecies" had the claims not been true.

Montgomery will not "waste time" on the possibility that the disciples were "suffering from insane delusions" because:

1) the law presumes a man sane;

2) their enemies would have "used this against them."

That the accounts we have are hearsay - and thus would be rejected as evidence by a modern court - can be largely answered by the fact that the enemies of the disciples provided the "functional equivalence... of formal cross-examination." Thus the problem is reduced "to the vanishing point."

Legal arguments aside, perhaps the best evidence is why would the disciples die for a lie?

We see in the Gospels that they were basically cowards. Why did these timid lambs suddenly change into the lions of the faith? People die for what they believe is true, but people do not die for what they know is NOT true. History says all of the disciples were executed for refusing to give up their faith except John who died of old age.

And then there is the emergence and growth of the church. The church started with a small rag tag group of mostly poor people who were murdered and persecuted for their belief. Within two hundred years, it conquered Rome. We name our dogs Nero and Caesar and our children John and Paul. Thousands of churches and changed lives stand as a testament to the resurrection.

And last, the conversion of skeptics. Scores of non-believers, including Jesus’ own half-brothers, Paul the persecutor hunting down and arresting Christians and many atheists, all put their faith in Christ after seeing him alive or examining the evidence.

If the gospels were not true, all someone would have to do was to say, “Hey, wait a minute! I was there and it didn’t happen that way!” and the Jewish and Roman authorities would have made sure their testimony was made widely available and preserved in the official records - but they were unable to produce even one witness who disputed the Apostle's account and bribing a witness would do them no good because too many people knew how it really went down and could therefore expose the false testimony and severely embarrass the Authorities.

Answer 2

You do realize just when that movie was made don't you? In today's court without documentation you wouldn't be proving anything and the case would be thrown out. Also the judge wouldn't be too happy either since a nonsense case like that would just be clogging up the justice system.

In today's world where identity theft is rampant you wouldn't get anywhere with "he is because I say so".

Answer 3

It would probably be proven that he was a preacher who walked around Galilee spreading his ideas on how people could have a more meaningful existence, and that he never intended to overthrow the Roman Empire or really cause trouble.

He would not be able, in a court of law, to prove that he was the son of god.

For the thumbs-downers -- Read your bible. Jesus went around curing people, raising folks from the dead, but when he was taking in front of Roman officials he performed no such miracles. He never put his supposed powers on display. What makes you think he would do so in a present-day court? Wouldn't that be a little out of character with your scriptures?

Answer 4

I'll take that treadmill off your hands. Perhaps we could do a swap? Some badly chosen Hello Kitty socks for the treadmill. I'll even chuck in a Terry's Chocolate Orange.

Answer 5

1. It was a fictional movie about a fictional character.

2. Can you put Jesus on trial today?

Answer 6

You can't seriously be testing theological theories based on this movie, can you? You may very well mean well, but this is trivializing Christ. When He does come back He won't be standing trial in any courtroom to prove who He is.

By the way, what movie was it that Jesus got a truck load of mail delivered to him? I missed that one.

Answer 7

There is no proof from anyone outside of the bible that Jesus was even put on Trial...Do you understand how advanced the Romans were?They themselves have no record at all of the trail. not to mention the Jewish Counsel would NEVER meet on the Sabbath! I mean what part of history don't you understand.

Answer 8

Jesus stood trial already and with the people's account, he ended up on the cross.

Answer 9

I own a book called leading lawyers look at the resurrection by Ross Clifford. In it some of the greatest legal minds in history show that there is very credible evidence that the gospel writers were honest reliable witnesses. They include names such as Hugo Gratius, Profeessor Simon Greenleaf, Lord Hailsham, Lord Caldicote, Lord Lyndhurst, Lionel Luckhoo, J.N.D. Anderson, Sir Robert Anderson. Check them out.

Answer 10

Consensus doesn't prove anything. You should know this from history class. Remember, Germany voted itself into National Socialism.

EDIT: YOU SHOULD ALSO KNOW IT FROM PHILOSOPHY 101.