Faith on Trial by Pamela Binnings Ewen Page A
Authors: Pamela Binnings Ewen
Tags: Christian Theology, apologetics
Ads: Link
standard.
ii. Craft an argument that the resurrection of Jesus is a belief that is not inconsistent with scientific knowledge today.
d. Medical evidence is presented in the Gospels to support the credibility of the witnesses. Discuss the evidence and its relevance to our analysis (Luke 22:44; John 19:34).
e. Critics have stated that the Gospel of John is too sophisticated to have been written by a provincial fisherman. What evidence would you use to support an argument that the apostle John was fully capable of authoring his Gospel?
i. The Gospel of John is different from the other three Gospels. For example, recall that it’s replete with interpretations and opinions. Can you think of other differences?
a. How would interpretations and opinions of a witness stand up in a court of law?
VI. CHAPTER SIX: COLLATERAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CORROBORATION
a. Details are important. Nothing happens in a vacuum; everything in life happens in relation to something else. A false witness will usually generalize, and even where details are provided, they are limited in scope. Details that cannot be corroborated have a negative impact on the credibility of a witness. The evidence in chapter 6 corroborates the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, proving them to be credible. Corroboration of details tends to establish that the witness is telling the truth. The Gospels are packed with detail—historic, archeological, medical details—which have been corroborated independently from evidence preserved over thousands of years. In any debate solid, independent evidence is your tool. The more you can recall, and in the order presented, the firmer the foundation.
i. Rule: No one piece of evidence is required to stand on its own; instead, we are creating a chain of proof. As we’ve said, building a chain of proof is like building a wall, brick by brick. Chapter 6 provides us with solid bricks.
ii. What were the two or three pieces of evidence set forth in chapter 6 that you conclude are most convincing for a skeptic? And why?
iii. Using only evidence in chapters 5 and 6, craft an argument proving that Jesus was a real person, that he was crucified, and that he died on the cross.
iv. What evidence exists to prove that the apostle Peter was a real person, that he gave his life teaching, and that he was an eyewitness to the resurrection?
v. Pick one witness—Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, and using the evidence presented in chapters 2, 3, 5, and 6, tie the evidence together, creating a chain of proof to support an argument that testimony of that witness is sufficient proof that the resurrection occurred.
vi. What weight, if any, would you give to the Shroud of Turin in the chain of proof?
1. If you believe the Shroud might be authentic, construct an argument to support this belief.
VII. CHAPTER SEVEN: SUMMATION TO THE JURY
a. Consider the elements of proof in the case set forth in Faith on Trial . Does any particular type of evidence, or proof, seem more compelling than the others? If so, why? Start with these:
i. The issues, admissibility, and reliability of the source evidence (the ancient manuscripts and fragments)
ii. Evidence establishing the firsthand knowledge of the witnesses—that is, who wrote what and when
iii. The question of originality—whether Matthew, Mark, and Luke copied one another
iv. Evidence establishing each witness’s credibility
1. Science does not conflict with fundamental Christian beliefs.
2. Recall that our objective in examining credibility is to prove that the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are worthy of belief. It is through their testimony as witnesses that we can prove that the resurrection occurred as a matter of fact. We are therefore testing their statements in the Gospels under the same standards used for any witness in court.
b. In a trial, once sufficient evidence is admitted to establish that certain facts asserted are more likely than not to be true, the burden of proof
ii. Craft an argument that the resurrection of Jesus is a belief that is not inconsistent with scientific knowledge today.
d. Medical evidence is presented in the Gospels to support the credibility of the witnesses. Discuss the evidence and its relevance to our analysis (Luke 22:44; John 19:34).
e. Critics have stated that the Gospel of John is too sophisticated to have been written by a provincial fisherman. What evidence would you use to support an argument that the apostle John was fully capable of authoring his Gospel?
i. The Gospel of John is different from the other three Gospels. For example, recall that it’s replete with interpretations and opinions. Can you think of other differences?
a. How would interpretations and opinions of a witness stand up in a court of law?
VI. CHAPTER SIX: COLLATERAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CORROBORATION
a. Details are important. Nothing happens in a vacuum; everything in life happens in relation to something else. A false witness will usually generalize, and even where details are provided, they are limited in scope. Details that cannot be corroborated have a negative impact on the credibility of a witness. The evidence in chapter 6 corroborates the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, proving them to be credible. Corroboration of details tends to establish that the witness is telling the truth. The Gospels are packed with detail—historic, archeological, medical details—which have been corroborated independently from evidence preserved over thousands of years. In any debate solid, independent evidence is your tool. The more you can recall, and in the order presented, the firmer the foundation.
i. Rule: No one piece of evidence is required to stand on its own; instead, we are creating a chain of proof. As we’ve said, building a chain of proof is like building a wall, brick by brick. Chapter 6 provides us with solid bricks.
ii. What were the two or three pieces of evidence set forth in chapter 6 that you conclude are most convincing for a skeptic? And why?
iii. Using only evidence in chapters 5 and 6, craft an argument proving that Jesus was a real person, that he was crucified, and that he died on the cross.
iv. What evidence exists to prove that the apostle Peter was a real person, that he gave his life teaching, and that he was an eyewitness to the resurrection?
v. Pick one witness—Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, and using the evidence presented in chapters 2, 3, 5, and 6, tie the evidence together, creating a chain of proof to support an argument that testimony of that witness is sufficient proof that the resurrection occurred.
vi. What weight, if any, would you give to the Shroud of Turin in the chain of proof?
1. If you believe the Shroud might be authentic, construct an argument to support this belief.
VII. CHAPTER SEVEN: SUMMATION TO THE JURY
a. Consider the elements of proof in the case set forth in Faith on Trial . Does any particular type of evidence, or proof, seem more compelling than the others? If so, why? Start with these:
i. The issues, admissibility, and reliability of the source evidence (the ancient manuscripts and fragments)
ii. Evidence establishing the firsthand knowledge of the witnesses—that is, who wrote what and when
iii. The question of originality—whether Matthew, Mark, and Luke copied one another
iv. Evidence establishing each witness’s credibility
1. Science does not conflict with fundamental Christian beliefs.
2. Recall that our objective in examining credibility is to prove that the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are worthy of belief. It is through their testimony as witnesses that we can prove that the resurrection occurred as a matter of fact. We are therefore testing their statements in the Gospels under the same standards used for any witness in court.
b. In a trial, once sufficient evidence is admitted to establish that certain facts asserted are more likely than not to be true, the burden of proof
Similar Books
