EASTER

[PolyKarbon]

Hey polykarbon, aren't you the one who posted a few months ago that your life sucked and you were depressed and couldn't find joy in anything anymore.

I'm glad you found a pill for that. You got it all figured out.

 

I don't remember saying that, but I don't doubt it, lemme go do a search for old times sake. I get depressed just like eveyone else does from time to time, but I'm glad that I can rely on a true Christian to throw it in my face as some sort of insult. Ever since my son was born, I've been happy as a clam, except for the whole being in iraq shit, life is pretty damn good!

 

 

I was thinking about it the other night, and I think I've found the reason why you christians cling to your faith so hard. You're whole life revolves around god. He is your everything, and if it was proven that he doesn't exist, you would be crushed to your very core. No doubt suicide rates would sky rocket. Me on the other hand, my whole life doesn't revolve around being an atheist. If god was proven to exist, it wouldn't have a bad effect on me. You NEED your god, I don't need my atheism.

[Wallrat]

My neighbors are a bunch of deeply religious folks. They won't even kiss until marriage (I shit you not)! Anyway they're always asking me how it is I can go through life denying god and what I tell them is: I honestly don't think about religion. Atheists don't get together once a week to discuss our lack of beliefs. We don't have a common book that we all read and quote from. We don't have a social circle of other atheists. We don't study atheism. We don't have holidays to remind us of our faith (and yes, atheism is a faith). The only time I really think about my beliefs are when I'm arguing my viewpoint with somebody that disagrees with me.

[PolyKarbon]

atheism is a faith

 

Whoa whoa whoa.....here's where we differ, atheism is not a faith. Atheism is.....uh...a commonly misspelled word! Hey, heres an example you christians can learn from, check this out:

 

Wallrat, I respectfully disagree with your veiw of atheism, and we can still co-exist peacefully on this earth together.

 

See, no one gets hurt, no one gets killed, lawsuits aren't filed, etc etc...

[banshee04le]

by Josh McDowell:

 

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.

 

 

LIVING WITNESSES

The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.

 

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."

 

 

IS THE NEW TESTAMENT RELIABLE?

Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.

 

By the end of the 19th 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. "

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .

E. M. Blaiklock

Professor of Classics

Auckland University

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

BACKGROUND

The New Testament witnesses were fully aware of the background against which the resurrection took place. The body of Jesus, in accordance with Jewish burial custom, was wrapped in a linen cloth. About 100 pounds of aromatic spices, mixed together to form a gummy substance, were applied to the wrappings of cloth about the body. After the body was placed in a solid rock tomb, an extremely large stone was rolled against the entrance of the tomb. Large stones weighing approximately two tons were normally rolled (by means of levers) against a tomb entrance.

 

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

As we have said, the first obvious fact was the breaking of the seal that stood for the power and authority of the Roman Empire. The consequences of breaking the seal were extremely severe. The FBI and CIA of the Roman Empire were called into action to find the man or men who were responsible. If they were apprehended, it meant automatic execution by crucifixion upside down. People feared the breaking of the seal. Jesus' disciples displayed signs of cowardice when they hid themselves. Peter, one of these disciples, went out and denied Christ three times.

 

FACT #2: EMPTY TOMB

As we have already discussed, another obvious fact after the resurrection was the empty tomb. The disciples of Christ did not go off to Athens or Rome to preach that Christ was raised from the dead. Rather, they went right back to the city of Jerusalem, where, if what they were teaching was false, the falsity would be evident. The empty tomb was "too notorious to be denied." Paul Althaus states that the resurrection "could have not been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned."

 

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."

 

 

FACT #3: LARGE STONE MOVED

On that Sunday morning the first thing that impressed the people who approached the tomb was the unusual position of the one and a half to two ton stone that had been lodged in front of the doorway. All the Gospel writers mention it.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.

 

 

Clark Pinnock

Mcmaster University

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

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?

 

 

FACT #4: ROMAN GUARD GOES AWOL

The Roman guards fled. They left their place of responsibility. How can their attrition he explained, when Roman military discipline was so exceptional? Justin, in Digest #49, mentions all the offenses that required the death penalty. The fear of their superiors' wrath and the possibility of death meant that they paid close attention to the minutest details of their jobs. One way a guard was put to death was by being stripped of his clothes and then burned alive in a fire started with his garments. If it was not apparent which soldier had failed in his duty, then lots were drawn to see which one wand be punished with death for the guard unit's failure. Certainly the entire unit would not have fallen asleep with that kind of threat over their heads. Dr. George Currie, a student of Roman military discipline, wrote that fear of punishment "produced flawless attention to duty, especially in the night watches."

 

 

FACT #5: GRAVECLOTHES TELL A TALE

In a literal sense, against all statements to the contrary, the tomb was not totally empty--because of an amazing phenomenon. John, a disciple of Jesus, looked over to the place where the body of Jesus had lain, and there were the grave clothes, in the form of the body, slightly caved in and empty--like the empty chrysalis of a caterpillar's cocoon. That's enough to make a believer out of anybody. John never did get over it. The first thing that stuck in the minds of the disciples was not the empty tomb, but rather the empty grave clothes--undisturbed in form and position.

 

 

FACT #6: JESUS' APPEARANCES CONFIRMED

Christ appeared alive on several occasions after the cataclysmic events of that first Easter . When studying an event in history, it is important to know whether enough people who were participants or eyewitnesses to the event were alive when the facts about the event were published. To know this is obviously helpful in ascertaining the accuracy of the published report. If the number of eyewitnesses is substantial, the event can he regarded as fairly well established. For instance, if we all witness a murder, and a later police report turns out to be a fabrication of lies, we as eyewitnesses can refute it.

 

 

OVER 500 WITNESSES

Several very important factors are often overlooked when considering Christ's post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.

 

HOSTILE WITNESSES

Another factor crucial to interpreting Christ's appearances is that He also appeared to those who were hostile or unconvinced.

 

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.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.

 

 

F. F. Bruce

Manchester University

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

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.

 

 

THE WRONG TOMB?

A theory propounded by Kirsopp Lake assumes that the women who reported that the body was missing had mistakenly gone to the wrong tomb. If so, then the disciples who went to check up on the women's statement must have also gone to the wrong tomb. We may be certain, however, that Jewish authorities, who asked for a Roman guard to be stationed at the tomb to prevent Jesus' body from being stolen, would not have been mistaken about the location. Nor would the Roman guards, for they were there!

 

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.

 

 

HALLUCINATIONS?

Another attempted explanation claims that the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection were either illusions or hallucinations. Unsupported by the psychological principles governing the appearances of hallucinations, this theory also does not coincide with the historical situation. Again, where was the actual body, and why wasn't it produced?

 

 

DID JESUS SWOON?

Another theory, popularized by Venturini several centuries ago, is often quoted today. This is the swoon theory, which says that Jesus didn't die; he merely fainted from exhaustion and loss of blood. Everyone thought Him dead, but later He resuscitated and the disciples thought it to be a resurrection. Skeptic David Friedrich Strauss--certainly no believer in the resurrection--gave the deathblow to any thought that Jesus revived from a swoon: "It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to His sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that He was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life,

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.

 

A. N. Sherwin-White

Classical Roman Historian

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

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 BODY STOLEN?

Then consider the theory that the body was stolen by the disciples while the guards slept. The depression and cowardice of the disciples provide a hard-hitting argument against their suddenly becoming so brave and daring as to face a detachment of soldiers at the tomb and steal the body. They were in no mood to attempt anything like that.

 

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!

 

 

THE RESURRECTION IS A FACT

Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God has given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."

 

 

REAL PROOF: THE DISCIPLES' LIVES

But the most telling testimony of all must be the lives of those early Christians. We must ask ourselves: What caused them to go everywhere telling the message of the risen Christ?

 

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.

 

 

WHERE DO YOU STAND?

How do you evaluate this overwhelming historical evidence? What is your decision about the fact of Christ's empty tomb? What do you think of Christ?

 

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).

[helldriver]

man you are stupid, cant you stop quoting shit and think for yourself

 

cant you come up with some answers on your own?

 

all that is saying alot, btu really once again says nothing

 

and do you really think anyone here is gonna reaD ALL THE NONEsense?

Edited April 19, 2006 by helldriver

[helldriver]

and you say you dont belive science?

 

well if it wasent for science, you wouldnt be where you are today?

 

do you think it was jesus that made all the things we have today?

 

jesus didnt make your banshee,, Science did

 

if we all went by the bible and said to hell with science, we would still be worshiping volcanos

 

bible pushers FEAR science, that why they dont belive it

bible retards have spent years TRYING to prove what the bible say is true, but can not come up with one shred of REAL evidence that says it is true, beyond quoting or goggling shit that just beats around the bush, and gives no answer

 

 

 

oh wait a minute,, i did find jesus, i think he fell out of 04les ass

look here

http://www.atheistempire.com/entertainment...mer%20jesus.jpg

Edited April 19, 2006 by helldriver

[banshee04le]

What do you mean I don't believe in science? You are about as dumb as they come aren't you. Keep talking though. Your making this easier for everyone.

I bet I know more about science than you do. Wallrat is the only one who has made an itelligent post on your side of the issue when he spoke of sciences ability to re-create polypeptides in an inanimate state...lacking that spark of life...nothing more than a protein goo...might as well be peanut butter. You are the one beating around the bush and giving no answers. Anyway, if just one person opens their heart to the message of Jesus then it's worth my time to waste on you. Besides, it's funny to watch "helldriver" get all worked up (something eating at there "guy"?) whenever people talk about God.

[helldriver]

hahah i dont go quoting stuff 10 pages long,

that too me says your all worked up,

you haver to TRY and make your point by sensless quoting

you can not think for yourself

 

your just a mear follower of a blind faith

 

i dont care if you belive in that homsexual peice of shit jesus,

but when you try and push your shit on other people is when i lash out

 

you just cant accept the fact that not many people in this day and age dont follow jesus

Edited April 19, 2006 by helldriver

[Wallrat]

Whoa whoa whoa.....here's where we differ, atheism is not a faith. Atheism is.....uh...a commonly misspelled word! Hey, heres an example you christians can learn from, check this out:

 

Wallrat, I respectfully disagree with your veiw of atheism, and we can still co-exist peacefully on this earth together.

 

See, no one gets hurt, no one gets killed, lawsuits aren't filed, etc etc...

504171[/snapback]

 

 

faith n.

 

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.

3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

6. A set of principles or beliefs.

 

Unless you have definative proof to cover every argument posed by the believers, then you have to take some things on faith. I don't know how the universe was born, I wasn't here. Maybe it was a big bang, maybe it was something different, but I BELIEVE that it had nothing to do with a supreme being. I'm happy with that. Knowing the end-all answer really wouldn't change my life one bit. Take a look at the above definition and tell me that at least the first one doesn't describe your own personal atheism. Neither side has concrete evidence proving the other side wrong. People put their faith where it makes the most sense to them.

[banshee04le]

Actually I'm not worked up at all. I'm like a little kid. I don't stay mad. I sometimes wonder why I don't hold grudges against some people I have encountered in life, but I don't. For me, when the fight is over all is forgiven.

Therefore if you harbor any kind of resentment or animosity (hate) towards Christians, well then I think everyone has the answer they are looking for right there, because I wish nothing but the best for you.

[helldriver]

well as a devotee to the dark side,,, i give you a horned salute LOL

it is always fun arguing you with you, we dont see eye to ey on the religion thing, other than that youre probably an ok guy

 

rock on

[biggun6ss]

Banshee04le never tried to push anything on anyone. He simply stated his thoughts about easter and what it is about. You responded by saying relegion=bullshit. If you care nothing for relegion then why did you respond? No christian has any hard proof that Jesus rose from the dead or that there is a God, all we have is our faith. On the other hand, no non Jesus beleiving person has any hard proof that he didn't exist. So I am going to go on beleiving that he did exist until the day I die, at least I will have something to look foward to after death, I wish you could feel the same Helldriver

[banshee04le]

Thanks.

[Kayleigh]

wallrat said that atheism is wen u believe that life and stuff had nothing to do with like a god or some higher being right?.....well i believe that....but i somewhat believe in god too.

just today i got into a mix up with atheism vs. agnostics....wats the deal on that? i thought one thing but my friend said i had it wrong...

[Bansheeman1121]

Banshee04le never tried to push anything on anyone. He simply stated his thoughts about easter and what it is about. You responded by saying relegion=bullshit. If you care nothing for relegion then why did you respond? No christian has any hard proof that Jesus rose from the dead or that there is a God, all we have is our faith. On the other hand, no non Jesus beleiving person has any hard proof that he didn't exist. So I am going to go on beleiving that he did exist until the day I die, at least I will have something to look foward to after death, I wish you could feel the same Helldriver

504270[/snapback]

Dude this guy knows his shit and im with him on everything he said, Good words man wish i was mart enough to put em into words like that