|
Evidence for the Resurrectionby Josh McDowellFor centuries many of the world’s distinguished philosophers have assaulted Christianity as being irrational, superstitious and absurd. Many have chosen simply to ignore the central issue of the resurrection. Others have tried to explain it away through various theories. But the historical evidence just can’t be discounted. A student at the University of Uruguay said to me. “Professor McDowell, why can’t you refute Christianity?” “For a very simple reason,” I answered. “I am not able to explain away an event in history–the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” How can we explain the empty tomb? Can it possibly be accounted for by any natural cause?
Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone. In subsequent weeks, His disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He appeared to them various times before ascending into heaven. From that foundation, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and has continued to exert great influence down through the centuries.
The writers of the four Gospels either had themselves been witnesses or else were relating the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events. In advocating their case for the gospel, a word that means “good news,” the apostles appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning the facts of the resurrection. F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records as primary sources: “Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective.”
By the end of the 1 9th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date. Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world’s foremost biblical archaeologist, said: “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.” Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of “authentic evidence” concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: “Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. “
A Roman guard of strictly disciplined fighting men was stationed to guard the tomb. This guard affixed on the tomb the Roman seal, which was meant to “prevent any attempt at vandalizing the sepulcher. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb’s entrance would have broken the seal and thus incurred the wrath of Roman law. But three days later the tomb was empty. The followers of Jesus said He had risen from the dead. They reported that He appeared to them during a period of 40 days, showing Himself to them by many “infallible proofs.” Paul the apostle recounted that Jesus appeared to more than 500 of His followers at one time, the majority of whom were still alive and who could confirm what Paul wrote. So many security precautions were taken with the trial, crucifixion, burial, entombment, sealing, and guarding of Christ’s tomb that it becomes very difficult for critics to defend their position that Christ did not rise from the dead. Consider these facts: FACT #1: BROKEN ROMAN SEAL FACT #2: EMPTY TOMB Both Jewish and Roman sources and traditions admit an empty tomb. Those resources range from Josephus to a compilation of fifth-century Jewish writings called the “Toledoth Jeshu.” Dr. Paul Maier calls this “positive evidence from a hostile source, which is the strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, this means that if a source admits a fact decidedly not in its favor, then that fact is genuine.” Gamaliel, who was a member of the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin, put forth the suggestion that the rise of the Christian movement was God’s doing; he could not have done that if the tomb were still occupied, or if the Sanhedrin knew the whereabouts of Christ’s body. Paul Maier observes that ” . . . if all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea, in which Jesus was buried, was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement.”
Those who observed the stone after the resurrection describe its position as having been rolled up a slope away not just from the entrance of the tomb, but from the entire massive sepulcher. It was in such a position that it looked as if it had been picked up and carried away. Now, I ask you, if the disciples had wanted to come in, tiptoe around the sleeping guards, and then roll the stone over and steal Jesus’ body, how could they have done that without the guards’ awareness?
Over and over again, I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using that argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the multiple eyewitness accounts. But that line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ’s followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection.
The argument that Christ’s appearances were only to followers is an argument for the most part from silence, and arguments from silence can be dangerous. It is equally possible that all to whom Jesus appeared became followers. No one acquainted with the facts can accurately say that Jesus appeared to just “an insignificant few.” Christians believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected in time and space by the supernatural power of God. The difficulties of belief may be great, but the problems inherent in unbelief present even greater difficulties. The theories advanced to explain the resurrection by “natural causes” are weak; they actually help to build confidence in the truth of the resurrection.
If the resurrection-claim was merely because of a geographical mistake, the Jewish authorities would have lost no time in producing the body from the proper tomb, thus effectively quenching for all time any rumor resurrection.
an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made upon them in life and in death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship.”
The theory that the Jewish or Roman authorities moved Christ’s body is no more reasonable an explanation for the empty tomb than theft by the disciples. If the authorities had the body in their possession or knew where it was, why, when the disciples were preaching the resurrection in Jerusalem, didn’t they explain: “Wait! We moved the body, see, He didn’t rise from the grave”? And if such a rebuttal failed, why didn’t they explain exactly where Jesus’ body lay? If this failed, why didn’t they recover the corpse, put it on a cart, and wheel it through the center of Jerusalem? Such an action would have destroyed Christianity–not in the cradle, but in the womb!
Had there been any visible benefits accrued to them from their efforts–prestige, wealth, increased social status or material benefits–we might logically attempt to account for their actions, for their whole-hearted and total allegiance to this “risen Christ .” As a reward for their efforts, however, those early Christians were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified. Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking. Yet, they laid down their lives as the ultimate proof of their complete confidence in the truth of their message.
When I was confronted with the overwhelming evidence for Christ’s resurrection, I had to ask the logical question: “What difference does all this evidence make to me? What difference does it make whether or not I believe Christ rose again and died on the cross for my sins!’ The answer is put best by something Jesus said to a man who doubted–Thomas. Jesus told him: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6). On the basis of all the evidence for Christ’s resurrection, and considering the fact that Jesus offers forgiveness of sin and an eternal relationship with God, who would be so foolhardy as to reject Him? Christ is alive! He is living today. You can trust God right now by faith through prayer. Prayer is talking with God. God knows your heart and is not so concerned with your words as He is with the attitude of your heart. If you have never trusted Christ, you can do so right now. The prayer I prayed is: “Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and trust You as my Savior. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be. Thank You that I can trust You.” Josh McDowell, according to a recent survey, is one of the most popular speakers among university students today. He has spoken on more than 650 university and college campuses to more than seven million people in 74 countries during the last 21 years. ©1992 Josh McDowell Ministry http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html |
Obviously, go for the groin. Just think how awesome you’d be if ………………
Great Guy and amazing teacher….
There’s No Such Thing As a Fair Fight:
Several Dirty Tactics
by Keith Pascal
<a href=”http://Keith Pascal ;”>Keith Pascal <info@advantagemartialarts.com>;
“You wouldn’t really kick someone in the groin,
would you?”
I am occasionally asked that question by some of
my novice students. I think that they feel it would
be dishonorable to use “unfair” tactics and techniques
in a fight.
First, let me emphasize, there is a difference between
sparring and an actual self-defense situation. In a
classroom session, you may have to set up guidelines
or rules, in order to keep everyone safe. On the street,
you are defending yourself, to stay alive.
Don’t treat the two situations as though they were
the same “animal.”
They aren’t.
Many of the best martial artists are honorable
people. Some even have a gentle nature about them, as
a result of gaining confidence, while disciplining
the mind.
This gentle nature develops with years of constant
training. The “best” of these gentle folk would still
do what it takes to survive in a real encounter.
So, what kinds of techniques would be considered unfair?
Before we get down to specifics, let me give you
some general advice:
* Any move that is illegal in competition, should be
considered fair game on the street. Maybe the reason
it was made illegal is just what you need to really
defend yourself.
* Anything that could be labeled as a “cheap shot.”
Taking advantage of your opponent’s weakness, injury,
or disability is considered a cheap shot. So is
catching your opponent off guard. And “faking”
or feinting is definitely cheap. USE THEM ALL!
* Taking advantage of your environment is both cheap
and ‘unfair.’ That’s why ‘I’ wouldn’t hesitate to use
anything available to stay safe. Dirt or gravel
in the face sounds effective. Sticks, canes, and even
umbrellas can be used as bludgeons to pound on
an attacker. Get the idea?
Recently, I examined some of the tactics and
techniques I use that might be considered unfair.
There were too many to name.
I realized that a fair bit of my system is based on
taking advantage of the immediate situation any way I
can.
“Any way I can” translates to a lot of unfair tactics.
A few of the tactics that I consider basic, yet
super essential are:
*Obviously, go for the groin. Just think how
awesome you’d be if your goal were to plaster the
crotch, no matter what else happened in the fight.
You might get tagged, but you would reach your goal–
and probably defend yourself in the long run.
*I would head for the eyes with an almost equal intensity
as I would to the groin. Eye jabs are great. You extend
your distance a bit. They are fast. If you actually
succeeded with an eye jab against a serious assailant,
would you have anything more to worry about (except
being sued by the criminal or put in jail for
excessive violence)?
*I step on feet. If I have my foot firmly planted on
the lead foot of my opponent, I know that at
least the front foot won’t be kicking at me.
Enough said.
You do realize that whenever you go into “unfair mode,”
you are probably increasing the potential legal damage.
In today’s society, throwing “any sort” of kick or
punch will probably attract some sort of legal repercussion,
let alone an “unfair” technique.
Just keep in mind that a lot of times you can’t plead
minimal force in the eyes of the court … if you do
something that seems unjust. I am not the first to
notice that justice in the courts can easily
be skewed by perception.
Be careful.
Bonus Unfair Tactic:
*Use a control maneuver in between two series
of damaging blows. Huh?
Here’s what I mean: Usually, a wrist lock
or an arm bar would be thought of as a
controlling move to bring a sequence to a
controlled close.
Instead, I continue wailing on my opponent
“after” I gain control.
I have my initial strikes — after all, I
wouldn’t try to respond to my opponent’s
attack with a lock before I countered with
strikes of my own.
After doing some initial damage to my attacker,
I am ready to try some sort of joint lock. OK,
I lock my attacker. Am I done? Not a chance.
Now that I have some more control, I can
really start to defend myself. I don’t even
pause between the lock and when I start to
pound,in theory….
***Caution***
Yep, this is an unfair move. And you might be
in real trouble with the law.
You went beyond minimum force, and not only that, but
the attack might have been considered over, if you
stopped after you got control, and then started
a “new attack,” (in the eyes of the law).
Figure out your own limits. Know how far you could
be pushed, before you’d “do whatever it takes to survive.”
Avoid conflict at “almost” all costs. Take responsibility
for your actions. Be ethical. Be moral. Yet survive.
And have a nice day
When angry at God, the rage feels validated .
.Mad with your Father ? You’re not alone. Even prophets in the Bible were mad at Him!When believers admit to themselves that they are angry at God,the condition is not nearly as dangerous or as imprudent as living in denial.
When angry at God, the rage feels validated . God can do anything so He should . . . If God is cold , selfish or abuses His power, He deserves our contempt. He’s no better than we are. Let’s think and ask ourselves: What if we’re still watching the beginning of the movie and have yet to watch all the the unmasking of villains and secret plots? Have we been duped into jumping to conclusions before the end ?
Is it over-simplistic to say God can do anything? it remains illogical – absurd, in fact – to suppose that infinite power could create a circle with straight sides, for example. The moment omnipotence forces straight sides on to a circle, it is no longer a circle. Likewise, not even could someone be moral and honest while at the same time cheating, lying and stealing.
If there is a God of love, consider this: you cannot fervently love someone without aching for that person to love you – especially if you know that person desperately needs you in his/her life. To deeply love someone means you could have everything else in the universe, and yet without that person’s love you would still be heartbroken.
So do you want an omnipotent God to abuse his power or act in love?
To be mad at God is as mad as angrily smashing your fist into a wall. It hurts you deeply.
Being mad at God is as mad as a child so furious at his parents for not letting him drink poison. having no conception of the dangers he is exposing himself to. We understand our God ( our real Father ) no more than a little child can understand its parent’s decisions.
To be mad at God is as mad as a drowning man fighting off his rescuer.
Arrogantly assuming we know the end of the story when we’re still on the first page, we b jump to conclusions when we only know a fraction of the facts and get things so wrong that we end up blaming the one person who is utterly innocent, treating as a sadistic torturer the only person who cares enough to tend our wounds, despising the person who has given us both his kidneys, and instigating a hate campaign against the sweetest person in the universe.
Claiming we know more than the only Person who has all the facts, and thinking ourselves more righteous than the Source of all morality might not be the smartest thing we have ever done. Anyone supposing he knows more than the one WHO knows everything, and that he is smarter than the One with infinite IQ, has set himself on a collision course with reality.
If we really think the One we can never hide from and who has the power to torment us for all eternity is cruel or heartless, why would we risk the fury of the Omnipotent One by raging against him? We want God to execute instant justice without stopping to realize that instant justice would have sent us to hell. Ironically, what infuriates us about God is the very thing we should be most grateful for. No, we should not be grateful for all the evil in this world – it grieves, hurts and infuriates God even more than it does us – but God’s decision to give time to repent rather than instantly executing justice is the very thing that has given us time to come to our senses before it is too late.
‘Cold Reading’ Your Opponent l at a fairly safe distance from your attacker,
Are you ready to learn to gain useful information about
your attacker, even before he is in striking range?
Obtaining a little advanced information could be the
difference between success and failure –
life and death towards the end of this issue. You’ll learn some
important awareness tips for focusing on your opponent.
Tips for ‘Cold Reading’ Your Opponent
You are still at a fairly safe distance from your
attacker, at least for a second or so. What do you look
for while you are scanning?
In the art of magic, a lot of the fake mind readers
engage in a practice known as Cold Reading. They feel
that they can amaze their audience by telling the
individuals personal details that they could only know
by mind reading.Actually, they are looking for some instant clues. They
want to make impromptu guesses.
Can you use this principle in your own defense?
* Look to see if a pocket of a coat is heavier
than the other, as if it were carrying a
concealed weapon.
* Scan the fingers of the hands. Especially
look at the thumb — is it relaxed or tense?
Could they be concealing a knife or other weapon?
* See if they pull up a pant leg on their lead
leg. This is one of the biggest telegraphs that
someone is about to kick. What a bad habit!
* Do they take a specific martial arts stance?
Does this reveal their background, or lack
thereof? I have found that wannabe martial artists
seem to posture the same idiotic TV Kung Fu stance.
And my best piece of Cold-Reading advice — don’t get
faked out by any of these clues.
In other words — don’t just focus on the heavier coat
pocket. Don’t assume that a tense hand is holding a weapon;
it could be a fake.
Don’t let someone pull up a pant leg and then get you
with a punch. And don’t assume that just because they
take a stance from one style, that your opponents are
limited to just that style.
IYou have to learn some
damaging techniques. You’ll be in close — real close.
Make sure your moves are quick and efficient.
Just about every technique must be effective! And you will overcome him
After the Fall, one must simply continue . The voice that complains……..
Awakening and the Great Fall Something beautiful and profound happened to me this year. In the early months of 2011, a challenge in my personal life caused a shift in my inner state of being. Complete self-acceptance and realizing the truthabout this situation pushed me over the edge into sheer bliss. Iawakened. A life that we live predominantlyin our heads—completely lost in thought. Most of us are unawareof this, but our minds are compulsively active. Thinking aboutthings that make us feel a sense of disharmony, dissatisfaction, and generalizedunhappiness.
After the Fall, one must simply continue . The voice that complains,
tells you how worthless and unhappy you are, etc. This is the voice of
the ego and nothing more. At present, there are very few people on the
planet who do not suffer from this terrible affliction in one form or another
you have to startwith yourself and take responsibility for being at any
given moment. That means now. Ask yourself, ‘Is there negativity in me
at this moment?’ Then, become alert, attentive to your thoughts as well
as your emotions.
Taking responsibility for your being is your
primary purpose in life. This can be an incredibly liberating realization
and at the same time a daunting one because it means that you can no
longer blame anyone else for your unhappiness. Your happiness, as it
turns out, is entirely up to you.