I would not like playing dodge ball against you.
Perhaps a courtesy of reviewing Greenleaf’s method is in order. You can blame the ancients for their approach, however we are now in the 21st century and can examine the same evidence they had.
Why didn’t G-d inspire them to meet modern standards.
After all. G-d knew that we would develop these modern standards, right?
Anyone?
So you aren’t getting emails either? The noive of him!
have a link for greenleaf?
Greenleaf wants to admit the gospels as ancient documents.
Hypothetically a court could admit the gospels as ancient documents, but that does not mean that their specific contents are automatically acknowledged as facts.
Technically, the gospels are at best hearsay, and are thus inadmissible for that reason alone.
When considering the contents as possibly, but not certainly containing facts, one should ask if they contain obvious falsehoods. Certainly the behavior of the Star of Bethlehem is an obvious falsehood, and any document that has obvious falsehoods should be rejected.
Certainly an assertion of an eclipse during the full moon would be a falsehood.
The assertion that the Sanhedrin said what ever they said has no record of who in the Sanhedrin said it, nor to whom it was said that carried the tail to the author. Such pretended testimony is not even hearsay, and should be rejected as if it was never uttered (because it may not have been).
So using Simon Greenleaf’s method, the gospels testimony is rejected.
a
I further assert that the gospels bear the marks of forgery, with the synoptic gospels being largely copied from another document, (Q) with their contents being such that the people available when writing them could not have been eye witnesses of the events to which the documents assert. That leads to errors of fact, such as odd behavior of stars, eclipses of the sun during a full moon, manufactured testimony by persons not available to the author, and (ready...
Assertions that people rise from the dead.)
No amount of correct testimony (Pontius Pilate was governor) mixed in with falsehood is sufficient to give the testimony of ancient documents, only admitted under the exception to hearsay rules that is given to ancient documents, credence.
If the ancient documents are a mixture of falsehood and fact, the fact that the documents are ancient makes it difficult to determine which is which. So after the gospels show the marks of forgery and the inability of the author to restrict his testimony to fact, the whole document can be safety relegated to the category of pious fraud- and rejected from being admitted as evidence.