Digital Discipleship Library

Legal Historical Proof

Legal Historical Proof

I learned as a nonbeliever that if I am going to examine the truth of Christianity, I must use the legal historical approach or what I call the evidential method.  Now what does that mean?  The legal historical proof is based on showing that something is true beyond a reasonable doubt.  Now let me repeat that.  It is based on showing that something is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

In other words the judge or the jury reaches a verdict or conclusion on the basis or the sufficiency or the weight of the evidence.  In other words it is reasonable to believe that this is what happened.  Or it is unreasonable to believe that that actually happened.

Now when it comes to the evidential method or the legal historical approach there are three types of evidence you consider.  One is what is called oral testimony.  That is verbally what one person passes on to another describing what happened.  A second is written testimony.  That is testimony of things written out about what happened.   Third is physical testimony like a photograph, a document that has been notarized and signed, a fingerprint, or the configurations in your eyes.  It is often used for security and to check out who that person really is.  Oral testimony, written testimony and physical testimony are what you call “exhibits.”

For example, try to prove scientifically that Abraham Lincoln was the President of the United States.  You cannot do that because you cannot repeat him being president in a controlled environment, and observation made of it.  However, using the evidential approach or the legal historical approach you can.  Why?  You can see photographs going back to him, personal testimony that has been written down, you have documents signed and notarized, etc.  This gives historical evidence that it is reasonable to believe that Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States.

That is the same approach that must be applied to Jesus Christ because you cannot repeat Him in controlled environment where observation can be made from a scientific method.

Read Study Guide

I learned as a nonbeliever that if I am going to examine the truth of Christianity, I must use the legal historical approach or what I call the evidential method.  Now what does that mean?  The legal historical proof is based on showing that something is true beyond a reasonable doubt.  Now let me repeat that.  It is based on showing that something is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

In other words the judge or the jury reaches a verdict or conclusion on the basis or the sufficiency or the weight of the evidence.  In other words it is reasonable to believe that this is what happened.  Or it is unreasonable to believe that that actually happened.

Now when it comes to the evidential method or the legal historical approach there are three types of evidence you consider.  One is what is called oral testimony.  That is verbally what one person passes on to another describing what happened.  A second is written testimony.  That is testimony of things written out about what happened.   Third is physical testimony like a photograph, a document that has been notarized and signed, a fingerprint, or the configurations in your eyes.  It is often used for security and to check out who that person really is.  Oral testimony, written testimony and physical testimony are what you call “exhibits.”

For example, try to prove scientifically that Abraham Lincoln was the President of the United States.  You cannot do that because you cannot repeat him being president in a controlled environment, and observation made of it.  However, using the evidential approach or the legal historical approach you can.  Why?  You can see photographs going back to him, personal testimony that has been written down, you have documents signed and notarized, etc.  This gives historical evidence that it is reasonable to believe that Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States.

That is the same approach that must be applied to Jesus Christ because you cannot repeat Him in controlled environment where observation can be made from a scientific method.

SUMMARY:  I learned as a nonbeliever that I must use the legal historical approach or the evidential method to examine the truth of Christianity.  A judge or jury’s verdict is based on the weight of the evidence, what is beyond a reasonable doubt.  There are three types of evidence to consider: oral testimony – what is verbally passes on; written testimony – things written about what happened; and physical testimony like fingerprints documents – items which can be checked out.  These are “exhibits.”  You cannot prove scientifically that Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States.  Documents can be produced like photographs or notarized papers, etc. which give historical evidence and thus identify him has President.  So with Jesus Christ such historical evidence can show that it is reasonable to believe although this cannot be proved by the scientific method.

QUESTIONS:

  1. What did Josh learn as a nonbeliever when he was examining the truth of Christianity?
  2. What does a judge and jury rely on?
  3. What are three types of evidence to consider?
  4. Can you prove scientifically that Abraham Lincoln was the President of the United States?
  5. What approach is applied to know about Jesus Christ?
es_ESES