₦airaland Forum

Feminism.
Now, this is likely to ruffle a few feathers among those who have swallowed the devilish lies the feminist movement have propagated over the years, so I want to emphasise right from the start that what I'm about to discuss is not an attack against women any more than feminism has women's liberty at heart. Rather it is a revealing of the true meaning of feminism and its inherent evil.

feminism is said to refer to a series of campaigns for reforms on issues such as reproductive rights, domestic violence , maternity leave , equal pay , women's suffrage , sexual harassment , and sexual‎ violence , all of which fall under the label of feminism . 
feminists have also had to maintain focus on women's‎ die reproductive rights, such as the right to abortion.

In terms of language, Feminists are sometimes, though not exclusively, proponents of using non-sexist language , using " Ms. " to refer to both married and unmarried women, for example, or the ironic use of the term "herstory" instead of "history". Feminists are also often proponents of using gender-inclusive language, such as "humanity" or "womankind" instead of "mankind", or "he or she" in place of‎ "he" where the gender is unknown.
There is also the criticisms of men's contributions to child care and domestic labour centered around the idea that it is unfair for women to be expected to perform more than half of a household's domestic work and child care when both members of the relationship perform an equal share of work outside the home. ‎

The general idea is man-advantage, woman-disadvantage. Feminism deceitfully seems to tackle this issue when in real life, for most “female disadvantages” there is some parallel “male disadvantage”. below is an analogy.

1. Women are under far more risk of sexual violence than
men are. Men are under far more risk of being sent to
prison. 
2. Just as women are expected to stay at home and be
mothers, men are expected to go out, even migrate, and
be breadwinners. 
3. Just as women are oppressed by social ideas of beauty, men are oppressed by social ideas of success. 
4.Just as women are oppressed by the idea of chastity, men are judged by how many women they’ve bedded. 
5.The male equivalent of sluts is not, as some people think, studs who have lots of sex, but losers who do not have any – both “sluts” and “losers” are considered failures on the
mating market. (Incidentally, womaniser is not a nice
word.) 
6. Words like bitch and cunt gendered, but so are creep, dick, bastard and asshole. 
7. Assertive women are considered overbearing, and unassertive men are considered weak.
8. violence against women has been highlighted in the media lately.  people insist that women have it particularly bad because they face violence on a daily basis. Yet, the vast majority of homicide and assault victims are men. Society
allocates more men to careers in the police force, the military
and crime, where the violence is the point . The riskiest
occupations, like fishing, logging or diving, are largely
male. Men are the majority of suicide victims. Rape is rampant in prison, and a non-issue for the public. Men are goaded to fight and considered “less of a man” if they back down. Most of the lives laid down in wars and political struggles are male. Men
are also victims of domestic violence, and yet the law doesn’t even recognize this as a possibility in most countries. Even in today’s American army, which has made much of integrating the sexes and putting women into combat, the risks aren’t equal. This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women.
Almost universally, they live shorter lives. Men are, and always have been, the disposable sex . Clearly men face violence, and it’s clearly a gendered institution. 
9. While many argue that men commit more aggressive crimes than women, studies can prove that some women commit these same heinous crimes.
Unfortunately, leniency for men seems to have no place
in the criminal justice system, especially when it comes
to the murdering of a spouse. Over the past several
years, some women have been allowed to serve little to
no time at all for...
Here’s a link showing that women tend to get shorter sentences for similar crimes: http://www.studymode.com/essays/Gender-Equality-Women Serving-Less-Time-621679.html
10. we are all aware of the numerous day to day priviledges given to women e.g  The Indian Government has amended the law to exclude the possibility of female rapists and hardly do you find female rape cases all over the world.

NOTE: I’m not claiming that women have it better than men or
vice-versa. Asking “who has it worse – men or women?” is like asking “what is more painful – being kicked in the balls or giving birth?” its a dead - end.
 I’m only using the existing frame of female disadvantages to illustrate male disadvantages. 

But this merely replaces one question with another:
why are feminists exposed to one-sided examples? Despite
being against all gender essentialism in theory, nine times out of ten, the activities of self-identified feminists – protests, op-eds, speeches, blog posts, organisation, tweets, essays, legal activism etc. – center around women’s problems.   The fact that beauty, a social construct, can drive young girls to unhealthy eating habits gets highlighted – the fact that success, a social construct, can drive young men to withdrawal
and depression does not. I’m not denying that the first
is a gender issue – I’m insisting that the second is as
well. They’re both consequences of individuals failing
to live up to some ideal that is partially determined by
their gender.

Research has shown that several arguments of the feminist activism is an unintelligible shorn of the empirical commitment to the basic thought that ‘women have it worse’. And this only fuels the proof that there is more to feminism philosophy than meets the eye and sadly unsuspecting ladies are dancing to the tune of this movement.

mstik:
^^^^^^^^^^
I said coc.k , not rooster

nairaland thns

mstik:
^^^^^^^^^^
I said coc.k , not rooster

nairaland thns

Vickybee:
Okay, your fiancé insists on keeping his virginity till marriage
and probably because of one reason or the other, you also
accept it.

but to your greatest surprise on your wedding night, you receive
the shock and dissapointment of your life...

surely there is always a reason for everything and he will give
a reason for fooling you.

And you don collect certificate for this 100unit course..

Ladies, how will you react to this

share your thoughts!!!

she'll av to bliv what he tells her, thanks God say we nor get evidence to show....winks*

MzNelly:
The question is not "What will you do?"

It's "What can you do?"

i can do all things through christ who strengthens me!!!
lol

okay, your fiancee insists on keeping her virginity till marriage
and probably because of one reason or the other, you also
accept it.

but to your greatest surprise on your wedding night, you receive
the shock and dissapointment of your life...

surely there is always a reason for everything and she will give
a reason for fooling you.

And u don collect certificate for this 100unit course..

Guys, how will you react to this

share your thoughts!!!

okay, your fiancee insists on keeping her virginity till marriage and probably because of one reason or the other, you also accept it.

but to your greatest surprise on your wedding night, you receive the shock and dissapointment of your life...
surely there is always a reason for everything and she will give a reason for fooling you.

And u don collect certificate for this 100unit course..

Guys, how will you react to this

share your thoughts!!!

We don’t often stop to consider the magnitude of what the Bible represents. It is literally God revealing Himself and communicating Himself to mankind in written word.
Orthodox Christianity teaches that the Bible was inspired and authored by the Holy Spirit of God using human instruments. And many Christians believe that—in its original languages of Hebrew,
Greek and Aramaic—it is without error and fault.
However, there are many things that Jesus-following, Church-going,
Bible-believing Christians believe that are completely unbiblical.
How does this happen? Often, we’ll hear someone quote a statement
that sounds nice to us, and we’ll begin repeating it as though it’s
biblical truth without ever researching it in Scripture.
Several of these unbiblical statements have gained enough traction
that many people believe they’re actually Bible verses. Not only are
the statements unbiblical; some of them teach the opposite of what
the Bible teaches.
Here are some popular unbiblical statements that Bible-loving
Christians tend to believe:


1. God Helps Those Who Help Themselves
This statement is actually anti-Gospel. Obviously God gave us gifts and talents that we’re
supposed to use, but self-reliance and self-righteousness, or the attitude of trying harder
and doing better actually gets in the way of the work of God.
In reality, Jesus saves those who die to themselves: “Then Jesus told His disciples, 'If anyone
would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me'” (Matthew
16:24).


2. God Wants Me to Be Happy
It’s a common belief that God exists to be our “personal genie” waiting to give us our every
wish. It’s amazing how we will justify our sinful actions by saying, “God just wants me to
be happy.”
Happiness is tied to feelings and emotions that are often based on circumstances, and those
change all the time. God wants us to be obedient to Him, trust Him and know that
everything He does is for our good, even if it doesn’t make us feel “happy” in that
moment.
“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who
are called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28).


3. We’re All God’s Children
Although God has created everyone, not everyone relationally belongs to Him. Only those
who have repented of sin, placed their faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and
possess the Holy Spirit of God inside of them can claim Him as their Father:
“But you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, 'Abba! Father!' The
Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Romans 8:15-16).
"So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were
baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ ... If you belong to Christ , then you
are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:26-29, emphasis mine
in both verses).


4. Cleanliness Is Next to Godliness
The people around you may appreciate you staying clean, but this is not Scripture. Parents
may use this to motivate their kids to clean their rooms. However, I’d suggest using an
actual biblical statement: “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long
in the land that the Lord your God is giving you” (Exodus 20:12). (I can’t guarantee that
will make your children want to clean up either, though).


5. God Won’t Give You More Than You Can Handle
Actually, all of life is more than we can handle. The point of living in a fallen world is not
for us to try really hard to carry our heavy burden, but rather realize we can’t do it alone
and surrender to God instead. That’s what faith is all about.
Everything is more than I can handle , but not more than Jesus can handle: “For we do not
want you to be unaware, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so
utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself” (2 Corinthians 1:.
“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).


6. Bad Things Happen to Good People
The sentiment of this makes sense, but if we follow it all the way through, the idea of a
good person is very subjective. Often, we place ourselves in the judgment seat of what is
good and bad, or who is good and bad.
The most popular way to make that judgment is by comparison. For example, Bob is a good
guy, because he is not as bad as Sam. However, according to the Bible we’re all on equal
ground because none of us is inherently good: “as it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not
one’” (Romans 3:10).


7. When You Die, God Gains Another Angel
Plain and simple. Humans are humans, and angels are angels. This remains so even in
eternity. In fact, angels are intrigued by the interaction between God and His “image-
bearing” humans: “It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you,
in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good
news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look” (1
Peter 1:12).


The fact that many Christians believe these unbiblical statements shows our unfortunate
overall biblical illiteracy. Instead of swallowing popular statements hook-line-and-sinker,
may we be like the Bereans in the Book of Acts. When they heard Paul preach, they
wanted to research the Scriptures themselves to authenticate what he was saying: “They
received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things
were so” (Acts 17:10-11).

This article was adapted with permission from Alreadyam.com .

hman4real:
Yh Muhammad fought in self defence. He didnt go abt killin innocent ppl. The pagans of Arab wantd to kill muslims. So Allah permit thm to defend thmslvs. Go back to history and read mor abot Muhammad our great teacher. Find out the kinds of war he fought. even we the real muslims ar not happy wn innocnt ppl ar killed

God is our defense not ourselves, mohammed killed several pple and thats wat these criminals did too

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 hath 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).
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."

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 would 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 he a fabrication of lies, we as
eyewitnesses can refute it.
OVER 500 WITNESSES
Several very important factors arc 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.' Such a statement in an admittedly
genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost
as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that
happened nearly two thousand years ago." Let's take the more
than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and
burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if
each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes,
including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50
hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many
other eyewitnesses and you would well have the largest and
most lopsided trial in history.
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.

For 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?
A QUESTION OF HISTORY
After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come
to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either
one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted
on the minds of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact
of history.
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 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. "
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:

refreshrate:
Relax and read what was written again before commenting my friend.

mohammed killed people, he claimed to be the last and best prophet, he is a model for his followers, so abeg why wont his followets also kill people....u need to rili research on ur religion

rigarmortis:
Suck my dikc while am pissing sire.

IslamE is a religion of piss and incites people to violent acts in the name of a Allah.

Religious terrorism is found many among the adherents of the teachings of a certain muhaMAD.

These guys are just like their brothers up north, killing ppl in the NE, one major similarity between the two, apart from their shaggy beard, sour disposition, propensity for violence is islam.

If a 100 ppl use hard drugs, not all of them will run mad, but some will, some will fall sick etc, while a few will be perfectly ok.

For those that are ok, it doesnt mean the drug is harmless, it means they can tolerate it better.

Islam is that drug.

great illustration

refreshrate:
He didnt segregate he said "Allah Himslf will punish this wickd muslims. They kip disobyin God and claim to be muslims. Killin is wrong"
...so wetin come be your own?

but he killed people, to him killing was no wrong, abeg clear

hman4real:
Allah Himslf will punish this wickd muslims. They kip disobyin God and claim to be muslims. Killin is wrong

but mohammed (the perfect prophet fought wars and killed

haftob:
Where did Adolf hitler,a devout catholic, one of the greatest terrorist that ever grace this world, get his idea from?

keep saying that to make u feel better, tell me one religious quote from adolf hitler or one convert from adolf hitker or a public declaration of his religion

Phinalphantasy:
you, this, such post is one of the problems pf this world. no one said there is no socio-integration and radicalization problem in Islam....separate the problem from the people. separate the religion from the "practicers"...

such could have been said about xtianity during the 16th century era of countless killing but that has been long resolved. this, in Islam, will be resolved as well.

These terrorists are purely animals hiding uunder religious gratifications and justifications, to make them feel good and holy

such could b said about the early roman catholics not christians

IbnSultaan:
. Islam is not the problem. Humans are

maybe C.A.N and oritshejafor are responsible ds tym

Mallamkay001:
U are jst foolish.condeming islam is a negation of ur christain belief which says 'thou shall not judge! Jesus never practiced chriistainity,he was sent to d people of isreal.d bible is an imperfect book full of error hence its consistence revision.so I dont really av ur tym,I wud av tell u y JESUS was a muslim rather than being a christain.
Am here to jst u that ur twisting Skill shuld be channeled to politics so as to be financially rewarding.
Try and see a phsycatrist,coz I think ur. brain is due for Lobotommy.

lol, u try, i know u cant fault any of the above...sorry none of ur brothers too have been able to fault it

adexsimply:
You don't need an epistle to prove that any religion is false. It's very obvious to those who can use their brains

Someone created your brains and better brains before you not some dumb atomic fusion.

johnydon22:
In case you are missing some facts, El is the supreme God according to the canaanite pentheon. the husband of asherah and father of 70Gods including baal, salem, el shadai and even yahweh in some texts..
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)

llol
wikipedia was developed several years after the bible and is ignorant in the things of the spirit, so what are you talking about.

johnydon22:
In case you are missing some facts, El is the supreme God according to the canaanite pentheon. the husband of asherah and father of 70Gods including baal, salem, el shadai and even yahweh in some texts..
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)

llol
wikipedia was developed several years after the bible and is ignorant in the things of the spirit, so what are you talking about.

rahymat:
pls dnt allow d devil to use ur heart i know dat dis isnt u

there is only one God, and there are many other gods....The name of the one true God is El (El-elyon, El-lohim)....how did El change to Al and subsequently Allah along the line....truth is bitter my sister.

kilokeys:
hahahaha... i actually had a mango.. wnted to use ur mouth as the toilet when my tummy started running.. where were u?

having a quick one with your momma.

speak2emmalex:
Old illiterate grandpa you will surly cry again

whos crying now sucker

kilokeys:
old man

ageing is a good thing sha..

In the next elections he might do all these sitting .






_{if buhari win ehn.. make i lay two unripe mango}

okay, you wer saying.......

DukeNija:
Nothing for you sir.

how about now

clevvermind:
shame on apc. defeat awaiting them.

bros how market

Ihuomadinihu:
Asari is right though. Anybody condemning him is tribalistic and ignorant of the political history in Nigeria. Power has finally returned to the cabals :the north and south west. The people that swore to make GEJ's government unpopular truly succeded! For how long will the north and south cheat the east?

didnt we vote for jonathan in 2011, now that we have voted for another choice, we are tribalistic shey....i respect the igbos and hausas when it comes to tribalism......the elightened yorubas will vote for progress and not tribe, ask tinubu why he didnt run for president or vice...

alazinho:
Wise up man...... dose boiz will do dis country more harm dan dis boko haram boiz..... jst bliv

thank God we dont have a weak dummy as president again, those boiz better get ready to perish in their numbers

jieta:
u cant allow asari dokumbo to rule u bt u can allow a working corpse to rule u

south africa allowed a working corpse to rule didnt they, and it worked for them....you people are too tribalistic...i salute the yorubas who voted not against pdp but against jonathans personality, wr dont want another four years of nuthb..if GMB too does nothn,na only four years he get...we dont care about tribe,we carr about the progress of our country, Tinubu knew he'll fail woefully if he ran for president...look on thr bright side

basilico:
I am glad for the internet. Though we copy paste a good number of people are aware that a common thief murderer, paedo, rapist and a narcissistic can never be a God sent prophet.
This annoys Muslims. Its only a matter of time when Muslims realise their taqqiya is not being bought any more and that they deitify a criminal

Keep up.. the annoyed muslins will do anything to silence islam critics growing by the day. Thanks to kuffar internet.

lol