How Christianity is Shown to be True

2/1/2020

We can't prove Christianity is true the same way that we prove gravity exists. Why not? Because we prove gravity by the scientific method, by having a controlled environment where an experiment is repeated again and again and observations recorded. The experiment must be repeatable. The central claims of Christianity, which are the death, burial, and Resurrection of Jesus, are historical claims and cannot be repeated. You can’t take Jesus, kill and bury him, and see if he resurrects again and again and again. Specific historical events are unrepeatable. You can’t prove historical events using the scientific method. You must evaluate historical claims using the legal-historical method of proof. How would you determine whether something occurred in history? Look at the written testimony, the oral testimony, and the physical testimony. How would a jury determine whether someone was guilty of a crime? Look at the written testimony against him, the oral testimony of those who watched it and were willing to testify, and look at the physical evidence, such as fingerprints. In the same way, Christianity, being historical, can be shown to be true using the legal-historical method.

The fact that Christianity’s central claims (the death, burial, and Resurrection of Jesus) can be analyzed by the legal-historical method of proof makes it different from other religions. Unlike Christianity, many other religions cannot be proven true or false using the historical method. But if Christianity is true, because of its unique historical claims, it can be demonstrated to be true, not by the scientific method, but by the legal-historical method.

This does not mean that science or the “sciences” such as archaeology or textual criticism1 cannot be used to help confirm Christianity. In fact, scientific facts do a lot to support the validity of Christianity. I am simply saying you can’t use what is called “the scientific method” to prove Christianity. You must use the legal-historical method of proof.

25 Comments

Aaron Gillespie

2/3/2020 12:17:00 pm

I completely agree that you cannot prove Christianity true with the scientific method and I also agree that it is possible to prove Christianity with the historical-legal method. I would also content that strong evidence from the historical-legal method can be supported by some relevant scientific data which makes for an overall stronger case.

mark stieby link

4/24/2020 07:10:32 pm

The historical legal method is a hand down proof that Jesus lived, perfprmed miracles, died, and then was resurrected. All this things can be verified by eye witnesses of the time. We have solid proof Jesus died and came back to life. Thats why I know we are the one true religion. Using Bible prophecy and having a leader come back to life. No other religion has claimed that there God came back to life. Christianity is the onliy one.

Nick Adams

5/1/2020 07:48:56 pm

The historical method provides the proof that validates the message of Christ. The beauty of this is that as you see the validity that is brought by the historical record it brings validity to the scientific claims of Christianity as well.

Tyler Edwards

5/7/2020 05:54:30 pm

This is a very important distinction to make when debating creation vs. evolution. Neither Creation or Evolution can be proven using the scientific method because these events are impossible to repeat, but only Creation can be proven using the Historical method.

Joshua Stamper

12/10/2020 07:13:10 pm

I agree with Dr. Bird on this. Many people would quickly admit that the ancient accounts of world empires and some historical leaders are true, simply because of the ancient manuscripts found concerning them, but many skeptics would discredit the Bible, simply because they cannot see it. People believe Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus, Kublai Khan, and many others truly existed, but they don't want to believe even the accounts of Jesus or his disciples. This just shows their bias.

Lane Williams

5/22/2021 10:44:04 am

I like this article! This is such good truth that I wish more people understood. People try to apply the wrong methods of proof to Christianity often in order to reject it arbitrarily.

Chandler Witter

7/19/2021 05:25:02 pm

I think this is an important things to keep in mind when discussing Christianity with those who are skeptical. We must show what kind of proof Christianity offers. People need to have the right expectations. I think a good way to go is: (1) Philosophical Discussion of Naturalism vs Theism, (2) The Rationality of Christian Theism, (3) The Historical Evidence, (4) The Pragmatic/Experiential evidence, (5) The Invitation.

Austin Randall

12/7/2021 08:30:38 pm

I agree fully with you on proving Christianity like this. It is not something that is scientific because it is faith. But there are so many ways that we can prove His existence!

Zane H

12/11/2021 07:40:00 pm

People are right to want proofs of Christianity's historical accounts. However, they look in the wrong place when they try to prove it scientifically. No ancient historical figures can be proven to exist via the scientific method. Just as with any other historical figure, one must use the legal-historical method to determine the reality of their existence. When all the evidence is weighed, it points in favor of the core events of the New Testament. If those events are shown to be true, then rest of the New Testament event descriptions should be given the benefit of the doubt when being examined.

Kyle

12/13/2021 11:59:48 am

This is an important distinction to make when people try to claim that you can't "prove" that Jesus existed because we can't use the scientific method which is true. But we can't use the scientific method to "prove" that Alexander the Great either, but I haven't found anyone yet who doesn't believe that he existed. We have to use the legal-historical method to prove that anyone existed in history that we did not personally see. Even atheists know that you can't scientifically "prove" someone existed. I think the reason that they try to pull out the "scientific card" on the historical claims of Jesus is because the story of Jesus involves the supernatural and they have already decided that the supernatural is impossible so therefore, the story of Jesus must be false or at least dramatically exaggerated.

Anthony Paulus

12/15/2021 07:26:53 pm

In this blog post you did a great job of finding a claim that people make against the resurrection of Jesus. In this blog it was using the scientific method of approaching against the resurrection of Christ. However, you can't use the scientific method of observable, repeatable, in a controlled environment etc. for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Using the legal historical method we can come to a true conclusion. Just like a court of law uses evidence like witnesses, physical documentation, and others to prove am instance, it's the same way with the truthfulness of the Apostles claim that he rose from the dead. "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel is also a great book that completely covers the historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. His book further expands on the blog that you've posted here. If anyone would have any further questions or desire more information, Lee Strobel's book would be the place to go!

Frank Frausto

5/6/2022 05:25:47 pm

The legal-historical method validates the NT documents as legitimate historical documents. In those documents many eyewitnesses attest to seeing and interacting with Jesus of Nazareth after He was crucified before the eyes of many other witnesses and was buried in a tomb. On one occasion it was reported that the risen Christ was seen by over 500 people at one time. Recent archeological discoveries prove that people mentioned in the NT like Pontius Pilate and the high priest Caiaphas (who both played a significant role in Jesus’ being crucified) were real individuals who lived in 1st century Palestine. I fully agree with Dr. Bird that the legal-historical method proves the resurrection of Jesus Christ to be true.

Curtis G

5/11/2022 01:53:31 pm

Very well written post. I appreciated the differentiation between the scientific method and the legal-historical method. Excellent points.

Stewart

5/12/2022 11:40:08 am

I love that you wrote a blog post about this topic. This is a crucial topic to write on, many people in the world deny either the existence of Christ or the reality that he died and rose bodily from the grave. And this is the foundation of what Christianity is built upon, it is fundamental.

Austin Randall

5/14/2022 08:52:28 pm

This is a very good discussion post! I have heard in my time that a lot of non-believers and even believers think that science is a bad thing and that it cannot help prove Christianity or Jesus’ existence.

There’s this video I love to watch and it is about an Atheist and a Christian debating over the question “where did God come from”. I will post the link below so you all can watch it! It is very helpful with science portion of that God and Christianity is real!

https://youtu.be/DqDrk2YeMdQ

gary

8/8/2022 10:51:16 am

"The fact that Christianity’s central claims (the death, burial, and Resurrection of Jesus) can be analyzed by the legal-historical method of proof makes it different from other religions. Unlike Christianity, many other religions cannot be proven true or false using the historical method. But if Christianity is true, because of its unique historical claims, it can be demonstrated to be true, not by the scientific method, but by the legal-historical method."

But Christianity fails the legal-historical method! Disputed eyewitness testimony is NOT good evidence. Imagine a court case in which one side refuses to accept the eyewitness status of a witness. The eyewitness status of the Gospels is disputed, my Christian friends. You may believe that there is strong evidence to support their eyewitness status but many experts, including many Christian experts, doubt the eyewitness status of the Gospels. The Gospels are therefore "hearsay" only. Not good evidence!

But Christianity has more problems! Modern archaeology does not support the claims of Christianity. There was no Exodus from Egypt. There was no Conquest of Canaan. There was no Abraham, no Moses, no Joshua, no united monarchy under the Kings David and Solomon! Jesus believed he was a descendant of the biblical King David. But if the biblical King David did not exist, what does that say about Jesus?? It makes Jesus either a fool or a liar. The evidence for the veracity of Christianity is poor, my friends. Poor indeed!

https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2022/08/07/who-was-israels-first-king-no-it-was-not-saul/

Kasey Stout

12/7/2022 08:53:49 am

I love this method of proof. I am a youth pastor and its one I use with my teens. I have taken them through Dr. Birds apologetic material. I highly recommend it.

Brent Whitaker

12/14/2022 02:49:16 pm

This is one of the first objections that I often hear in rejection of Christianity...."You can't prove it!" It is amazing how the same people who say that about Christianity, believe other historical events with less historical evidence.

gary

12/19/2022 09:38:54 pm

This is the problem with debating Christians who believe they can sense the presence of the resurrected Jesus within them:

Regardless of the quantity and quality of the historical evidence that we skeptics present, evangelical Christian apologists will ignore it if it challenges their personal experience of Jesus living within them. In addition, they will ignore any majority scholarly opinion which they perceive contradicts their personal experience of a resurrected Jesus living within them.

Therefore, the majority scholarly opinion that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses nor by the close associates of eyewitnesses is rejected. Since their personal experiences tell them that Jesus did rise from the dead, the Gospel stories must be historically accurate. Their historicity is unquestionable.

Bottom line: No amount of historical evidence is going to convince a Christian apologist that Jesus is dead if he perceives the resurrected Jesus living within him.

https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2022/12/19/dear-christian-apologist-if-jesus-lives-in-your-heart-why-bother-us-with-historical-evidence/

George R.

1/15/2023 02:59:07 pm

I like what Paul said, if you do not believe me, ask them, they saw what happen. Too many historical recordings exist proving the resurrection of Christ.

Gary

1/15/2023 03:01:47 pm

Hi George: What do you believe to be the strongest piece of historical evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus?

John Rosari

1/29/2023 07:11:01 pm

We have to make sure that we are not discounting science in general as if it is an enemy to our faith. Science will actually confirm what we believe. It is an ally, and not an enemy.

Kasey Stout

4/29/2023 12:42:51 pm

This is one of the best arguments for the truth of Christianity. I have just finished teaching this to my youth group and they soaked it up. Truly a great resource for apologetics. Thanks.

Josiah England

11/27/2023 05:32:56 pm

The distinction that Dr. Bird made between the scientific method and the legal-historical method is an important one when discussing the veracity of Christianity. If this distinction is not made, skeptics can suggest (wrongly) that Christianity cannot be proved scientifically. The problem lies in their definition of scientific. If "scientific" includes the legal-historical method, as is used in the justice system and in determining historicity of people and events, then the Bible can be proven scientifically beyond a reasonable doubt. However, this method of thinking is likely not what skeptics indicate when they say "science," hence the distinction. Well-articulated!

Chris Stamper

12/8/2023 07:26:08 pm

I found this to be a good stance on this topic. I agree that we must base our foundation on legal-historical method.

How Christianity is Shown to be True

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories