Jesus is Real - Listen and Read Why

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NdjoOOw6cro

Why did Jesus have to die on a Cross? | Rabbi Jason Sobel www.youtube.com

The Empty Tomb Is A Historical Fact, Most Scholars Agree

By

 James Bishop

 -

November 15, 2016

By James Bishop| Was Jesus’ tomb really found empty, or is this just a myth?  The empty tomb is absolutely central to the Christian faith because the entire truth of Christianity rests upon Jesus having been raised from the dead.  This makes inquiry into this historical question all the more important.

As it turns out, the empty tomb is widely considered to be an established fact of the ancient world.  Not all scholars agree as to what caused the tomb to become empty, but as far as the tomb itself actually being left without the body of Jesus, this is pretty well-established even among critical scholars.

Academic Consensus

According to a comprehensive survey of New Testament scholars, it is large consensus (roughly 75%) that Jesus’ tomb somehow became empty (1).  A study by New Testament scholar Gary Habermas published in the peer-reviewed Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus found that:

APPROXIMATELY 75% FAVOR ONE OR MORE OF THESE ARGUMENTS FOR THE EMPTY TOMB, WHILE APPROXIMATELY 25% THINK THAT ONE OR MORE ARGUMENTS OPPOSE IT. THUS, WHILE FAR FROM BEING UNANIMOUSLY HELD BY CRITICAL SCHOLARS, IT MAY SURPRISE SOME THAT THOSE WHO EMBRACE THE EMPTY TOMB AS A HISTORICAL FACT STILL COMPRISE A FAIRLY STRONG MAJORITY.

Just because most scholars believe this is true does not make it true, but the reason why so many believe the tomb as found empty is because of historical evidence (which we are about to look at).  The point being, one needs to explain how Jesus’ tomb became empty, and then why the disciples, and the skeptics James and the enemy Paul, claimed that Jesus had appeared to them in his resurrected body.

Paul informs us in his early creed that Jesus also appeared to 500 others. This is a belief that several early followers were martyred for and never, as far as our historical data tells us, recanted their faith that Jesus’ had in fact appeared to them. Whatever the case, they certainly believed it.

The Austrian scholar Jacob Kremer informs us that “By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb” (2). Likewise, scholar Van Daalen argues that:

“IT IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO OBJECT TO THE EMPTY TOMB ON HISTORICAL GROUNDS; THOSE WHO DENY IT DO SO ON THE BASIS OF THEOLOGICAL OR PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTIONS” (3).

Exegete, apologist, and professional philosopher William Craig concludes that there is “powerful evidence that the tomb of Jesus was actually found empty on Sunday morning by a small group of his women followers. As a plain historical fact this seems to be amply attested” (4)

The empty tomb is attested in early, independent sources

All our canonical gospels (Mark 16, Matthew 28, Luke 24, John 20) mention the empty tomb, Paul implies it in an early creed (1 Cor. 15:1-11), and it is further implied by Peter’s sermon in Acts. There are as many as three, or even four independent traditions within the Gospels that attest to the empty tomb.  This certainly heightens the probability of the tomb being found empty.

Scholar Gary Habermas captures this well saying that Jesus’ “empty tomb is reported in at least three, if not four, of these Gospel sources. This helps to understand why these items are taken so seriously by contemporary critical scholars” (5). One tradition can be found within Mark, known as the pre-Markan Passion Narrative, “The idea of a pre-Markan passion narrative continues to seem probable to a majority of scholars” (6).

According to William Craig this source is likely dependent on eyewitness testimony, “The burial account is part of Mark’s source material for the story of Jesus’ Passion. This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and dates to within several years of Jesus’ crucifixion.” (7).

It likewise attests to the empty tomb, “Mark’s Passion source didn’t end with Jesus’ burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to the burial account verbally and grammatically.”

Arguments for the tomb being found empty

1. Women witnesses

It’s quite remarkable that the authors of the Gospels penned that women were the ones to first discover and report the empty tomb.  At that time and in that culture, the testimony of women was not seen to be as credible as the testimony of men.  If they were making this up and wanted people to believe it, they wouldn’t have cited Jesus’ women followers as being the ones to discover the empty tomb.

“In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus says that women weren’t even permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law. Now in light of this fact, how remarkable it is that it is women who are the discoverers of Jesus’ empty tomb” (8).

As scholar Gary Habermas says:

“By far the most popular argument favoring the Gospel testimony on this subject is that, in all four texts, women are listed as the initial witnesses. Contrary to often repeated statements, First Century Jewish women were able to testify in some legal matters. But given the general reluctance in the Mediterranean world at that time to accept female testimony in crucial matters, most of those scholars who comment on the subject hold that the Gospels probably would not have dubbed them as the chief witnesses unless they actually did attest to this event.”

In other words, if the authors were simply making up fictional tales then they would have almost certainly put men as the discovers of the empty tomb. This persuasively suggests that the authors are exercising fidelity when it comes to their report of history.

2. Enemy attestation

Secondly, there is enemy attestation. Evidence found in Matthew 28:11-15 and reports by Justin Martyr and Tertullian tells us that the Jewish leaders tried to explain that the tomb was empty because Jesus’ disciples stole his body. This suggests that the Jewish authorities acknowledged the fact that Jesus’ body was no longer in the tomb.

They didn’t object to the tomb being empty, they tried to explain this fact away, which suggests to us it really was empty.  Historian Paul Maier explains that this early Jewish anti-Christian polemic is:

“POSITIVE EVIDENCE FROM A HOSTILE SOURCE. IN ESSENCE, IF A SOURCE ADMITS A FACT THAT IS DECIDEDLY NOT IN ITS FAVOR, THE FACT IS GENUINE” (9).

3. The empty tomb account lacks embellishment

Thirdly, in its primitive form the empty tomb narrative is theologically unadorned. This means that the story lacks later theological motifs that a late legend might be expected to contain. This suggests that the empty tomb account is early and more probably than not factual.

According to William Craig the empty tomb is credible as “it was not an apologetic device of early Christians…”.  There is no significant theological or religious embellishment, no signs of legendary development, and no exaggerations. What we see is a couple women followers discovering the empty tomb and being told by someone (who the perceived to be an angel) that Jesus is no longer there.

This kind of simplicity, given how crucial the empty tomb is to Christian doctrine, is evidence of this being a historical fact as opposed to a mythologized tale.

4.  Christianity would be debunked if someone had reported the tomb still contained the body of Jesus

Fourthly, one of the most powerful arguments that favours Jesus’ empty tomb is the location and events surrounding it. Our gospels all agree that Jesus was buried in a tomb that was located in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the place that most scholars agree was where early Christian preaching first took place, and thus subsequently led to the birth of the church.

However, any Christian preaching at this very early time would run into a bit of an issue if Jesus’ tomb was not empty.  If Jesus’ body was still in the tomb then Christianity would have buckled before it could have even got going. The easiest way to disprove the early Christian message of a resurrected saviour would be to go to the tomb where Jesus was laid, and expose it.

Jerusalem would have been the last place that Christianity would have taken off if Jesus was still in his grave. Paul Althaus comments that the resurrection proclamation:

“COULD NOT HAVE 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” (10).

Through a historical analysis of weighing the evidence and arguments, one is on good grounds in accepting the historicity of Jesus’ empty tomb. The empty tomb fits naturally with the earliest accounts we have available, seems to be more plausible than not given the surrounding circumstances, and is further supplemented by early and independent attestation in historical sources.

So here is someone who claimed to be the Son of God, was seen working miracles, healing the sick, raising the dead, who prophesied his own death and resurrection, was crucified, and then after three days his tomb as found empty.  What is the best explanation for the historical fact of the empty tomb of Jesus?

The best explanation comes from the testimonies of the eyewitnesses themselves.  That Jesus of Nazareth had risen from the dead, leaving an empty tomb behind.

Source: https://reasonsforjesus.com/the-empty-tomb-is-a-historical-fact-most-scholars-agree/

Jesus

Death of Jesus

Set aside whatever you're doing and take this opportunity! Let's see if Satan can stop this.

At the age of 33, Jesus was condemned to death.
At the time, crucifixion was the "worst" death. Only the worst criminals were condemned to be crucified. Yet it was even more dreadful for Jesus. Unlike other criminals condemned to death by crucifixion, Jesus was to be nailed to the cross by His hands and feet.

Each nail was 6 to 8 inches long. The nails were driven into His wrist, not into His palms as is commonly portrayed. There's a tendon in the wrist that extends to the shoulder. The Roman guards knew that when the nails were being hammered into the wrist, that tendon would tear and break, forcing Jesus to use His back muscles to support Himself so that He could breathe.

Both of His feet were nailed together. Thus He was forced to support Himself on the single nail that impaled His feet to the cross. Jesus could not support Himself with His legs because of the pain so He was forced to alternate between arching His back then using His legs just to continue to breathe. Imagine the struggle, the pain, the suffering, the courage.

Jesus endured this reality for over 3 hours.
Yes, over 3 hours! Can you imagine this kind of suffering? A few minutes before He died,
Jesus stopped bleeding. He was simply pouring water from his wounds.

From common images we see wounds to His hands and feet and even the spear wound to His side. A hammer driving large nails through the wrist, the feet overlapped and an even larger nail hammered through the arches, then a Roman guard piercing His side with a spear. But before the nails and the spear, Jesus was whipped and beaten. The whipping was so severe that it tore the flesh from His body. The beating so horrific that His face was torn and his beard ripped from His face. The crown of thorns cut deeply into His scalp. Most men would not have survived this torture.

He had no more blood to bleed out, only water poured from His wounds. The human adult body contains about 3.5 liters (just less than a gallon) of blood.

He had three nails hammered into His members; a crown of thorns on His head and, beyond that, a Roman soldier who stabbed a spear into His chest.
All these without mentioning the humiliation He suffered after carrying His own cross for almost 2 kilometres, while the crowd spat in his face and threw stones (the cross was almost 30 kg of weight, only for its higher part, where His hands were nailed).

Jesus had to endure this experience, to open the gates of Heaven, so that you can have free access to God. So that your sins could be "washed" away. All of them, with no exception! Don't ignore this situation.

JESUS CHRIST DIED FOR YOU!

He died for you! It is easy to pass jokes or foolish photos by e-mail, but when it comes to God, sometimes you feel ashamed to forward to others because you are worried of what they may think about you. God has plans for you, show all your friends what He experienced to save you. Now think about this! May God bless your life!

Follow Jesus' instructions. He said (Matthew 10:32 & 33):

"Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge

before My Father in heaven; but whosoever denies Me before others, I will deny before My Father in heaven."

Without God nothing else could exist

---

In this article we will explore a second path by which we can attain certainty about the existence of God: St. Thomas Aquinas's argument from 'efficient causality.'

Wed Mar 27, 2024

Listen to this article

0:00 / 12:58

BeyondWords

The following is Part V in a series defending the claims of the Catholic Church. Read Part I here; Part II here; Part III here; and Part IV here. 

This is the fifth installment in a series of articles demonstrating the reasonableness of the claims of the Catholic Church. In the previous installment we demonstrated that the existence of God can be known with certainty from what we observe of “motion,” or change, in the world around us.

In this article we will explore a second path by which we can attain certainty about the existence of God: the argument from “efficient causality.”

The distinction between the ‘first way’ and the ‘second way’

As we noted in the previous article, St. Thomas Aquinas’s proofs for the existence of God all begin from something that we can easily observe in the world around us. 

The “first way” begins with our sensory perception that the things of our experience are subject to change.

The “second way” begins with our perception that the things in the world around us are caused by something external to themselves.

There is a distinction between the observation of motion and the observation of efficient causality, and thus the proofs proceed from a different point, even though there is a similarity in how they develop.

But what is “efficient causality”?

Efficient causality

To understand the “second way” we must first understand the meaning of the term efficient causality. 

First, let’s see what we mean by cause and effect. 

• A cause is anything which contributes in any way to the producing of a thing.  
• An effect is the thing produced by the causes. 

The relationship between cause and effect is called causality.

There are countless different causes in the observable universe. However, they can all be categorized as either intrinsic or extrinsic. 

• Intrinsic causes are “in the thing,” they are part of it, and cannot be separated from it. For example, the wood of which a statue is made.
• Extrinsic causes are external to the thing. For example, the craftsman who carved the statue.

Intrinsic causes can be further subdivided into material and formal causes:

• The material cause is the matter of which a thing consists. For example, the wood, or marble or gold, of which a particular statue is made.
• The formal cause is that which constitutes a thing as precisely the thing that it is. It is that which determines and specifies the matter. For example, a wooden statue of a particular size, shape, weight, and so on.

Extrinsic causes can be subdivided into efficient and final causes:

• The efficient cause is that which produces an effect by its own action. For example, the craftsman is the efficient cause of the wooden statue beginning to exist. The efficient cause may have its effect through an instrumental cause, which in this case might be the chisel and hammer with which the craftsman works.
• The final cause is that towards which the efficient cause is directed in the production of the effect. In this example, the craftsmen may wish to make a statue of Our Lady so as to move men to prayer. Of course, things need not be consciously aware of their final causes; a wooden torch does not intend to burn and give light, but the nature of the wood does dispose it towards the end of burning.

All causes fall under one these four categories: material causes, formal causes, efficient causes and final causes.  

All beings which are caused can be called contingent beings, that is they are contingent on the operation of their causes for their existence. If the causes did not operate, the contingent being would not exist. 

A contingent being is therefore something capable of non-existence. It is a “possible” being, but it does not exist out of “necessity.” It exists only because it has been caused to exist by a being other than itself.

The opposite of a “possible being” is a “necessary being,” that is, a being whose existence is not contingent on any other being. A “necessary being” would, therefore, be self-existent and uncaused. 

These points will be important to remember later on in our argument. 

A closer look at efficient causality

There are few important aspects of efficient causality to consider before we move on to look at St. Thomas’s proof.

A distinction can be drawn between two types of efficient cause:

1. An efficient cause, the action of which causes a thing’s coming into being (an efficient cause in fieri) 
2. An efficient cause, the action of which sustains a thing in being (an efficient cause in esse)

The craftsman is the efficient cause of the statue’s coming into being, but once he has finished his work the statue will continue to exist, without his further action. He is the efficient cause of its coming into being, but his actions do not sustain its continued being.

The statue continues to exist because it’s existence is being sustained by another efficient cause operating at the given moment at which it exists. 

In the case of the statue, the wood from which it is made is of such a nature as to retain the shape which the craftsman gave it. In the absence of those natural qualities which allow it to conserve its shape, that shape would disappear, and the statue could no longer be said to exist. 

An effect ceases to be as soon as its cause ceases to operate. The statue’s process of coming into being ceased when the craftsman laid down his tools, and the statue’s being would cease if the cause sustaining its existence ceased to operate.  

It is therefore not sufficient for existence for a thing to have come into being at some point in time, rather it must be sustained in being by the continued operation of its causes. 

As the philosopher George Hayward Joyce S.J. writes:

It is absolutely impossible that a thing, which requires a cause to bring it into being, should remain in existence independently of cause in esse retaining it in being.[1]

This is because, as explained above, things which have come into being are contingent on their causes and are not the cause of their own being. 

If we were to assert that a created thing, like our wooden statue, could sustain itself in existence, we would be asserting that it was the kind of being which, by its own nature, was possessed of existence. But something which possesses existence by its own nature would have always existed and could never cease to be. Yet this is clearly not the case for the statue, or any other thing of which we have sensory experience. 

Therefore, we can affirm that every created thing of which we have sensory knowledge is the effect of two sequences of efficient causation:

1. Sequences of coming into being, through time
2. Sequences of being, at a given moment in time

Any given sequence under consideration has at least two members, a cause and effect, but a sequence may be extended to include a larger number of causes, from a first cause, through a number of intermediate causes, to the effect under consideration. 

An example of the first kind of sequence would be the continued generation of human beings, from father to son, generation after generation.

An example of the second kind of sequence would be the sustaining in existence of a given human being, after he has come to be. 

In this example we see more clearly the need for a sustaining cause. A man is more than just material substance, like our wooden statue, but rather he is a rational sentient living body, all of whose parts act as a single whole. There must therefore be an efficient cause of his continued being which is of an order capable of sustaining such a being in existence. 

It is from the second kind of sequence – the order of efficient causes of being – that St. Thomas Aquinas demonstrates the existence of God. 

How we can demonstrate the existence of God from the nature of the efficient cause?

St. Thomas begins:

In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. 

When we observe the world around us, we see things coming into being through the action of efficient causes. 

For example, we have seen the wooden statue coming into being due to the action of the craftsman, or a man coming into being as a result of human reproduction. 

We have also seen that there must be an order of efficient causes of being which explains why created contingent things, like the statue and the man, continue in existence after they have been created. 

As these things do not have the power to sustain themselves in existence, they must be sustained by something other than themselves, of an order capable of producing such an effect. 

For, as St. Thomas, says:

There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.

Neither the statue, or the man, or anything else, can be an efficient cause of itself. All are the effect of one or more efficient causes of their being. 

However, as St. Thomas writes:

In efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. 

Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. 

But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false.

The reason for this is evident from everything that we have said so far. 

Every effect of which we have awareness is itself the effect of an efficient cause. Therefore, each member of the sequence must in turn have its own efficient cause. 

But how can there be a first cause standing at the beginning of the sequence, if every efficient cause needs to be caused by another cause? 

Yet, there must be such a cause, because as St. Thomas says, “if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate efficient causes.”

Without the first cause, which begins a sequence, no other effect would be produced. Hence St. Thomas says, “to take away the cause is to take away the effect.”

There is only one solution to this problem. At the beginning of every sequence there must be a first cause, which is not subject to the limitation inherent in all the causes of which we have sense knowledge.

There must be a first cause, which is itself uncaused by an efficient cause. This is the only explanation which permits a sequence of efficient causality which sustains a contingent being in existence. 

This uncaused cause is necessarily a being whose existence is not contingent on causes. Therefore, it is a self-existent necessary being.

If such a necessary being did not exist, we would be unable to account for a universe which consists of contingent beings that cannot be their own efficient causes. 

As Dominican friar and theologian Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange explains:

[W]e cannot proceed ad infinitum, but must finally arrive at a primary cause, itself uncaused, which has being from itself, which it can give to, and preserve in others, and without which nothing that actually exists could continue to exist.[2]

Therefore, St. Thomas concludes:

It is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

This being is the First Efficient Cause of all the effects in the universe. 

It is the origin of all existence and all change. 

This “Uncaused Cause” necessarily has no origin and must therefore be eternal. 

As a necessary self-existent being, it is not subject to limitation and is therefore both infinite and perfect.[3] 

This necessary, self-existent, uncaused, eternal, infinite and perfect creator is certainly that being of which human beings speak when they say “God.”

Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/without-god-nothing-else-could-exist/?utm_source=daily-catholic-2024-03-28&utm_medium=email

Simple Cancer Cure?

AMAZING CANCER REVERSAL with Natural Medicine: 2 yrs ago, Conor Randall was given just 8 weeks to live. He had huge stage 4 tumors in pancreas, stomach...all over. Doctors gave him absolutely No chance of survival. But Conor didn't accept that. Instead, he quit chemo & dove into a carefully chosen Natural Medicine protocol. Now, after having a full scan, he's received news that he's 100% CANCER FREE. What did he do? 1. IP6 (Inositol Hexaphosphate) 2. Mesima mushroom (Phellinus Linteus) 3. Vegetable juicing • First thing he does every day is juice. • Then IP6 • Then Mesima mushrooms When people who were supposed to DIE, instead LIVE... when cancer that was supposed to take over simply goes away...& it keeps happening again & again to many people...it's clear that these things WORK. I'm convinced that if everyone with cancer simply tried High doses of IP6, Juicing, & Mesima...miraculous results could occur for a Large percentage of them.  Don't let them tell you cancer is a death sentence. Or that health-destroying chemo is your only option. Your body Can heal itself, if given the right help.

0:07 / 5:37

2:48 PM · Mar 19, 2024

·

1.4M

Views