In the early 1800's of Greenleaf, Harvard and Yale were religious colleges. The world has changed a bit since then.
An honest scientist would have to say that there is no evidence for the resurrection. You may make the point that the law could hold that witnesses in the Bible is "evidence". But they would also hold as equivalent evidence ancient writings about Zeus, Apollo, Ra, Thor, and innumerable others.
If you want to accept the resurrection, I can't say you're wrong. But I don't accept any "evidence" in favor of it either. There are far too many ancient writings with supernatural claims and I have no way to judge which are true, and which are false, so the prudent thing is to reject them all.
The principles of the rules of evidence and precedent have not. You’re using the worn-out, “if it’s old it must be deficient” argument. Do you feel the same way about the U.S. Constitution???
***”You may make the point that the law could hold that witnesses in the Bible is “evidence”. But they would also hold as equivalent evidence ancient writings about Zeus, Apollo, Ra, Thor, and innumerable others.”
Wrong. Those documents would be subject to the rules of evidence. They would be set aside.
***”There are far too many ancient writings with supernatural claims and I have no way to judge which are true, and which are false, so the prudent thing is to reject them all.”
There are many political positions in this world also - all claiming to be worthy of acceptance. Yet I would imagine you have not applied the above stated principle to your politics and reject ALL political positions!
You HAVE a way to determine what the truth is about God. You have a proposition in the Bible that you can test. In the Bible, God states, “You will find me when you seek for me with all your heart.” Can you honestly say you have done that?
It sounds to me like you would rather not know and that’s why you’ve brushed it all aside. If that’s the case, at least be honest with yourself about it.