Talk:Testimony of the Evangelists

[Untitled]
Moved from article to talk page:
 * ''===Note:===


 * I will continue to update this article with better information and to polish it so that it will be of higher quality. I consider this a "stub" which I will continue to edit, but have placed it on wikipedia so that the information is available.-infinitelink''

I moved this to the talk page so the article would look more formal. Hope you don't mind! By the way, I agree with the person who suggested that this article be moved to Wikisource. delldot | talk 01:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Seeking substantiating evidence
I've been searching for a source to substantiate the claim that Simon Greenleaf ever set out to disprove the resurrection of Jesus, or that this quest ultimately converted him to Christianity. While this is a very common story on the internet, nobody cites a source to back it up. Moreover, there is some positive evidence to suggest it is essentially an urban legend. For example, Simon Greenleaf was (apparently) a longstanding member of the Episcopal Church before he wrote his major works. He also explicitly states in paragraph four of "Testimony of the Evangelists" that his investigation does not address the existence of the Christian god or the divine nature of the Bible; he assumes at the outset that these have already been sufficiently established by other authors. This would be a very peculiar position to take if his own research had lead to his acceptance of the resurrection. Hence, it seems quite unlikely that his legal analysis had anything at all to do with his conversion to Christianity (or, equivalently, to his acceptance of the resurrection).

I would like to edit the entry on "Testimony of the Evangelists" to tone down the claims about Greenleaf's initial skepticism and subsequent conversion, unless someone can provide evidence to support these assertions. Any comments?

Comment added: April 14 2007. The point you raise about the "urban myth" is correct. He did not accept any challenge to go and disprove/prove the gospels while being a non-Christian. None of the reputable biographical profiles on him tell any such episode - sources such as the American Dictionary of Biography, Clifford's Leading lawyers, nor any of the legal apologetic books by authors like Chandler, Lamb, Russell etc. None of the extant writings of Greenleaf in relation to his religious beliefs ever state that he was an unbeliever converted by studying apologetic proofs. Alongside of his episcopal affiliations Greenleaf was also a Freemason. The Library of Congress catalogue lists Greenleaf's books which includes a treatise about Masonry. At the time Greenleaf lived many theologically conservative Americans were also members of the Lodge (like Charles Finney).

Bio-Biblio Note
Please note that I have contributed and edited to this article. The person named in this article as Philip Johnson is me. I am an Australian theologian and author. I am not be confused with the Phillip E. Johnson who wrote Darwin on Trial. There is no entry in Wiki about me nor do I wish to have any article written about me. Thanks for noting this.

Recent Removal== ==

I understand your concerns about the(un)reliable source. Packham is not published by a third party of reliability, i.e. academic source. However Clifford's published material interacts with Packham's arguments, thus establishing the need for reference (See Clifford's work). Further reference is made through links to Packham's material. Consider revising and editing instead of removing whole sections, so as not to violate the NPOV policy. Even when you leave just Clifford's comments the reference to Packham nonetheless remains. The Packham material seems to be adequately balanced by the contributing lawyer's NPOV comments. Thanks, Michael Jones 17:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Original Content
Some of the material in the "critical analysis" section appears to be original content, or at least uncited content. I am concerned that someone is using this as a forum to refute Packham from the Packham-Montgomery debate.John196920022001 (talk)

This is very much the case. The author of the 'critical analysis' is not only nakedly using it as a forum to deal with Packham's article and promote Legal Apologetics, they're doing it very poorly. They apparently didn't even take the time to read and understand Packham's article, as they claim he says the ancient documents rule only applies to express legal instruments, such as wills, when in fact Packham was referring to the parol evidence rule. In that respect, Packham is absolutely correct according to this encyclopedia. I don't know how to flag something for deletion, but that segment needs flagged for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.165.104 (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)