Mavenb0x:

LOL @OLAADEGBU and Mazaje.

Don't you guys know that all men, even atheists operate by faith?

What will I do with this my beloved sister? You have let the cat out of the bag again. You should have allowed me to string him on to give us the empirical evidence of the existence of Darwin since he is so sure about his existence. He has simply chosen to believe that Charles Darwin exists even though he has not seen him physically and now he has the effrontrey to say that we Christians have no evidence for what we believe.

^^

I gave you a picture which serves as evidence to show what Darwin at least looked like, Any picture for the alleged empty tomb of Jesus you claim still exists?

mazaje:

^^

I gave you a picture which serves as evidence to show what Darwin at least looked like, Any picture for the alleged empty tomb of Jesus you claim still exists?

What do you compare the picture with, is it the vision you received of Charles Darwin, that showed you what he looks like? or did you see him physically?

OLAADEGBU:

What do you compare the picture with, is it the vision you received of Charles Darwin, that showed you what he looks like? or did you see him physically?

Any picture of the alleged empty tomb yet?

mazaje:

Any picture of the alleged empty tomb yet?

My faith is depended on the Word of God not on a picture of an empty tomb. Your faith is based on fairy tales and photoshopped pictures, without them you will not believe. At the end of the day your assumptions are based on what others say is the picture of your Charles Darwin not on what you can empirically prove. Both of us require faith when it comes historical facts the difference is that your faith is based on what you can see but you are still subject to optical illusions. The more you look the less you see. But mine is based on the solid rock of ages.

OLAADEGBU:

My faith is depended on the Word of God not on a picture of an empty tomb.

I can now conclude that you don't know what you are talking about. . . . Your evidence to show that any god wrote down any word is what? You have nothing but writings of MEN who said that they were "inspired" by some imaginary deity to write down stuffs which happens to be nothing but their culture and exclusive way of life and nothing more. . . .

Your faith is based on fairy tales and photoshopped pictures, without them you will not believe.  At the end of the day your assumptions are based on what others say is the picture of your Charles Darwin not on what you can empirically prove.

ACTUALLY you are just talking about yourself and your beliefs. . . .you believe in the writings of men who LIED that they were "inspired". . . . .Men who wrote all sought of mythology and cultural stuff and ascribed it to some deity they created in their own image. . . .I don't even care about who Darwin is, All I know is that an image of him is available for people to see, Where is the image of your imaginary god? Any image of the empty tomb of Jesus you claim still exists?. . . . .Your entire faith depends entire on stories, myths and legendary writing of mostly unknown writers. . .With out these writings and mythical stories which your family and surrounding culture accepts and exposed you to since you were a child you will not believe. . . . .You entire belief rest on the unproven stories and mythologies of others which require some form of delusion cleverly packaged as "faith". . . . . .

Both of us require faith when it comes historical facts the difference is that your faith is based on what you can see but you are still subject to optical illusions.  The more you look the less you see. But mine is based on the solid rock of ages.

. . .I laugh. . .your delusion knows no bounds. . . .You don't have ANY historical facts to back up any of the myths and legendary tales you subscribe to and believe in. . . .All you have are stories that have no basis in reality which are non evidential and require that you delude yourself into accepting them and they tell you that what you have done is a virtuous things because faith delusion is a good thing. . . . .Keep on keeping on. . . .

OLAADEGBU where is the picture of the alleged empty tomb that you said is still in existence?. . . .

@Olaadegbu: No mind me abeg, bros. LOL. I don forget again!

@mazaje: You can read this credible article by Dr William Lane Craig. Dr. William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California.

This excerpt is from http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html and it contains authentic proof of the historicity of Jesus' Empty Tomb.

If you are really asking for the truth, and not just out to make jokes, read the excerpt or read the full gist at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html

The article is replete with relevant references. Cheers.

Having examined the testimony of Paul and the gospels concerning the empty tomb of Jesus, what is the evidence in favor of its historicity?

1. Paul's testimony implies the historicity of the empty tomb. Few facts could be more certain than that Paul at least believed in the empty tomb. But the question now presses, how is it historically possible for the apostle Paul to have presupposed so confidently the empty tomb of Jesus if in fact the tomb were not empty? Paul was in Jerusalem six years after the events themselves. The tomb must have been empty by then. But more than that, Peter, James, and the other Christians in Jerusalem with whom Paul spoke must have also accepted that the tomb was found empty at the resurrection. It would have been impossible for the resurrection faith to survive in face of a tomb containing the corpse of Jesus. The disciples could not have adhered to the resurrection; even if they had, scarcely any one would have believed them; and their Jewish opponents could have exposed the whole affair as a poor joke by displaying the body of Jesus. Moreover, all this aside, had the tomb not been empty, then Christian theology would have taken an entirely different route than it did, trying to explain how resurrection could still be possible, though the body remained in the grave. But neither Christian theology nor apologetics ever had to face such a problem. It seems inconceivable that Pauline theology concerning the bodily resurrection could have taken the direction that it did had the tomb not been empty from the start. But furthermore, we have observed that the 'he was raised' in the formula corresponds to the empty tomb periocope in the gospels, the egegertai mirroring the egerthe. This makes it likely that the empty tomb tradition stands behind the third element of the formula, just as the burial tradition stands behind the second. Two conclusions follow. First, the tradition that the tomb was found empty must be reliable. For time was insufficient for legend to accrue, and the presence of the women witnesses in the Urgemeinde would prevent it. Second, Paul no doubt knew the tradition of the empty tomb and thus lends his testimony to its reliability. If the discovery of the empty tomb is not historical then it seems virtually inexplicable how both Paul and the early formula could accept it.

2. The presence of the empty tomb pericope in the pre-Markan passion story supports its historicity. The empty tomb story was part of, perhaps the close of, the pre-Markan passion story. According to Pesch,{79} geographical references, personal names, and the use of Galilee as a horizon all point to Jerusalem as the fount of the pre-Markan passion story. As to its age, Paul's Last Supper tradition (I Cor 11. 23-25) presupposes the pre-Markan passion account; therefore, the latter must have originated in the first years of existence of the Jerusalem Urgemeinde. Confirmation of this is found in the fact that the pre-Markan passion story speaks of the 'high priest' without using his name (14. 53, 54, 60, 61, 63). This implies (nearly necessitates, according to Pesch) that Caiaphas was still the high priest when the pre-Markan passion story was being told, since then there would be no need to mention his name. Since Caiaphas was high priest from A.D. 18-37, the terminus ante quem for the origin of the tradition is A.D. 37. Now if this is the case, then any attempt to construe the empty tomb account as an unhistorical legend is doomed to failure. It is astounding that Pesch himself can try to convince us that the pre-Markan empty tomb story is a fusion of three Gattungen from the history of religions: door-opening miracles, epiphany stories, and stories of seeking but not finding persons who have been raised from the dead!{80} On the contrary: given the age (even if not as old as Pesch argues) and the vicinity of origin of the pre-Markan passion story, it seems more plausible to regard the empty tomb story as substantially accurate historically.

3. The use of 'the first day of the week' instead of 'on the third day' points to the primitiveness of the tradition. The tradition of the discovery of the empty tomb must be very old and very primitive because it lacks altogether the third day motif prominent in the kerygma, which is itself extremely old, as evident by its appearance in I Cor 15. 4. If the empty tomb narrative were a late and legendary account, then it could hardly have avoided being cast in the prominent, ancient, and accepted third day motif.{81} This can only mean that the empty tomb tradition ante-dates the third day motif itself. Again, the proximity of the tradition to the events themselves makes it idle to regard the empty tomb as a legend. It makes it highly probable that on the first day of the week the tomb was indeed found empty.

4. The nature of the narrative itself is theologically unadorned and nonapologetic. The resurrection is not described, and we have noted the lack of later theological motifs that a late legend might be expected to contain. This suggests the account is primitive and factual, even if dramatization occurs in the role of the angel. Very often contemporary theologians urge that the empty tomb is not a historical proof for the resurrection because for the disciples it was in itself ambiguous and not a proof. But that is precisely why the empty tomb story is today so credible: because it was not an apologetic device of early Christians; it was, as Wilckens nicely puts it, 'a trophy of God's victory'. {82} The very fact that they saw in it no proof ensures that the narrative is substantially uncolored by apologetic motifs and in its primitive form.

5. The discovery of the tomb by women is highly probable. Given the low status of women in Jewish society and their lack of qualification to serve as legal witnesses,{83} the most plausible explanation, in light of the gospels' conviction that the disciples were in Jerusalem over the weekend, why women and not the male disciples were made discoverers of the empty tomb is that the women were in fact the ones who made this discovery. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that there is no reason why the later Christian church should wish to humiliate its leaders by having them hiding in cowardice in Jerusalem, while the women boldly carry out their last devotions to Jesus' body, unless this were in fact the truth. Their motive of anointing the body by pouring oils over it is entirely plausible; indeed, its apparent conflict with Mk 14. 8 makes it historically probable that this was the reason why the women went to the tomb. Furthermore, the listing of the women's names again precludes unhistorical legend at the story's core, for these persons were known in the Urgemeinde and so could not be associated with a false account.

6. The investigation of the empty tomb by the disciples is historically probable. Behind the fourth gospel stands the Beloved Disciple, whose reminiscences fill out the traditions employed. The visit of the disciples to the empty tomb is therefore attested not only in tradition but by this disciple. His testimony has therefore the same first hand character as Paul's and ought to be accepted as equally reliable. The historicity of the disciples' visit is also made likely by the plausibility of the denial of Peter tradition, for if he was in Jerusalem, then having heard the women's report he would quite likely check it out. The inherent implausibility of and absence of any evidence for the disciples' flight to Galilee render it highly likely that they were in Jerusalem, which fact makes the visit to the tomb also likely.

7. It would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty. The empty tomb is a sine qua non of the resurrection. The notion that Jesus rose from the dead with a new body while his old body lay in the grave is a purely modern conception. Jewish mentality would never have accepted a division of two bodies, one in the tomb and one in the risen life.{84} When therefore the disciples began to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, and people responded, and the religious authorities stood helplessly by, the tomb must have been empty. The fact that the Christian fellowship, founded on belief in Jesus' resurrection, could come into existence and flourish in the very city where he was executed and buried seems to be compelling evidence for the historicity of the empty tomb.

8. The Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb. From Matthew's story of the guard at the tomb (Mt. 27. 62-66; 28. 11-15), which was aimed at refuting the widespread Jewish allegation that the disciples had stolen Jesus' body, we know that the disciples' Jewish opponents did not deny that Jesus' tomb was empty. When the disciples began to preach that Jesus was risen, the Jews responded with the charge that the disciples had taken away his body, to which the Christians retorted that the guard would have prevented any such theft. The Jews then asserted that the guard had fallen asleep and that the disciples stole the body while the guard slept. The Christian answer was that the Jews had bribed the guard to say this, and so the controversy stood at the time of Matthew's writing. The whole polemic presupposes the empty tomb. Mahoney's objection, that the Matthaean narrative presupposes only the preaching of the resurrection, and that the Jews argued as they did only because it would have been 'colorless' to say the tomb was unknown or lost, fails to perceive the true force of the argument.{85} The point is that the Jews did not respond to the preaching of the resurrection by pointing to the tomb of Jesus or exhibiting his corpse, but entangled themselves in a hopeless series of absurdities trying to explain away his empty tomb. The fact that the enemies of Christianity felt obliged to explain away the empty tomb by the theft hypothesis shows not only that the tomb was known (confirmation of the burial story), but that it was empty. (Oddly enough, Mahoney contradicts himself when he later asserts that it was more promising for the Jews to make fools of the disciples through the gardener-misplaced-the-body theory than to make them clever hoaxers through the theft hypothesis.{86} So it was not apparently the fear of being 'colorless' that induced the Jewish authorities to resort to the desperate expedient of the theft hypothesis.) The proclamation 'He is risen from the dead' (Mt. 27. 64) prompted the Jews to respond, 'His disciples , stole him away' (Mt. 28. 13). Why? The most probable answer is that they could not deny that his tomb was empty and had to come up with an alternative explanation. So they said the disciples stole the body, and from there the polemic began. Even the gardener hypothesis is an attempt to explain away the empty tomb. The fact that the Jewish polemic never denied that Jesus' tomb was empty, but only tried to explain it away is compelling evidence that the tomb was in fact empty.

Taken together these eight considerations furnish 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. As Van Daalen has remarked, it is extremely difficult to object to the fact of the empty tomb on historical grounds; most objectors do so on the basis of theological or philosophical considerations.{87} But these, of course, cannot change historical fact. And, interestingly, more and more New Testament scholars seem to be realizing this fact; for today, many, if not most, exegetes would defend the historicity of the empty tomb of Jesus, and their number continues to increase.{88}

Mavenb0x:

@Olaadegbu: No mind me abeg, bros. LOL. I don forget again! 

@mazaje: You can read this credible article by Dr William Lane Craig. Dr. William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California.

This excerpt is from http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html and it contains authentic proof of the historicity of Jesus' Empty Tomb.

If you are really asking for the truth, and not just out to make jokes, read the excerpt or read the full gist at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html

The article is replete with relevant references. Cheers.

What is this? I bet using this methadology it can be shown that Prophet mohammed also ascended into heaven historically on the back of a winged beast. . . . .The pyraminds of Egyptian kings that existed long before Jesus are still there for every body to see. . . .Where is the empty tomb of Jesus?. . . . .Talking about Paul, James, John and the other alleged disciples of Jesus from the bible says NOTHING at all. . . .Where are the extra biblical Jewish writings that talk about an empty tomb of Jesus of Nazareth who was raised from the dead?. . . .Even Paul himself in the bible does NOT talk about any empty tomb at all. . . . . I am very familiar with Willaim Criag and his non arguments and non evidence for the alleged resurrection of Jesus. . . .

@mazaje: I'm certain you know that there are tombs of other prominent people all over the world that have not yet been found (e.g. due to ruins, collapses and conquests), as well, and future excavations can bring them all to light?

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

I have supplied you with credible arguments and you have dismissed them summarily. I urge you to (in secret, you do not need to report back here) consider what respected anti-Christian authorities have to say about the missing tomb. You will be amazed that it is not a debated matter in intelligent circles.

But if you want to continue your tussle with Olaadegbu, be my his guest. After all, pretending to know what you have no idea about is the lifeblood of atheism.

I'm outta here.

Mavenb0x:

@mazaje: I'm certain you know that there are tombs of other prominent people all over the world that have not yet been found (e.g. due to ruins, collapses and conquests), as well, and future excavations can bring them all to light?

Yes. . . . . .

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

OLAADEGBU said that the empty tomb of Jesus still exists. . . .I just want him to tell us where it is. . . .If you claim that there are 100 cows flying in the sky be prepared to provide evidence for them or be ready to be accepted as the joker that you are. . . . .

I have supplied you with credible arguments and you have dismissed them summarily. I urge you to (in secret, you do not need to report back here) consider what respected anti-Christian authorities have to say about the missing tomb. You will be amazed that it is not a debated matter in intelligent circles.

These are NOT arguments at all. . . .If we are to go by those methodology then it can be argued that prophet Mohammad ascended into paradise on the back of a winged beast. . . . .Who are the respected anti-Christian authorities that talk about the alleged empty tomb and what have they said about it?. . . . .   

But if you want to continue your tussle with Olaadegbu, be my his guest. After all, pretending to know what you have no idea about is the lifeblood of atheism.

I'm outta here.

OLAADEGBU said that the empty tomb of Jesus still exists but seems to have a hard time telling us where it is. . .Can you help him?

mazaje:

OLAADEGBU where is the picture of the alleged empty tomb that you said is still in existence?. . . .

While you are still looking for the picture of the empty tomb let me remind you of someone who had similar problems before he could believe.

The other disciples therefore said to him, We have seen the LORD. But he said to them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. -- John 20:25 (The Evidence Bible)

If you could not see the picture of the empty tomb would you still believe?  Do you believe the many things that cannot be seen with the naked eyes could still exist?  I mentioned optical illusion earlier and the picture of Darwin that you believe is the empirical evidence of his existence is because you have chosen to believe it since you have not seen him physically to know how he looks like.

Have you ever seen the wind that blows daily? Have you seen your brain?  We see the effects of the wind and television waves even though they are invisible, and if you cannot see them with your naked eyes does that prove that they do not exist?  Charles Darwin is now history, have you seen history?  I know we have records of history, but as mavenbox has pointed out, it is by faith that we believe certain historical events happened.

You need an antenna and a receiver to detect the presence of the invisible television waves.  The unregenerate man likewise has a "receiver" and this receiver which is his spirit is dead because of sin (Ephesians 2:1).  You need to be plugged into the life of God, it is only then that you will come alive and be aware of the invisible spiritual realm that you are now finding difficult to fathom.

[b]For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but to us which are saved it is the power of God. [19] For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. [20] Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? [21] For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. [22] For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: [23] But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumblingblock, and to the Greeks foolishness; [24] But to them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. [25] Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.[/b] I Cor. 1:18 (The Evidence Bible).

"To convince the world of the truth of Christianity, it must first be convicted of sin.  It is only sin that renders Christ intelligible." -- Andrew Murray, The Spirit of Christ

Lets consider the attempts of some skeptics who started off doubting the resurrection claim of the Scriptures and see where their objective examinations led them to. Starting with Dr. Greenleaf.

Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:

"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."
(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).

Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of history!

And not only that, Dr. Greenleaf was so convinced by the overwhelming evidence, he committed his life to Jesus Christ!

What changed his mind? What evidence did Dr. Greenleaf encounter that so drastically turned him around? What facts did he discover that he could not rationally ignore?

To get answers to these questions and more click on the link below.

http://www.av1611.org/resur.html

OLAADEGBU:

Lets consider the attempts of some skeptics who started off doubting the resurrection claim of the Scriptures and see where their objective examinations led them to. Starting with Dr. Greenleaf.

Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:

"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."
(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).

Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of history!

And not only that, Dr. Greenleaf was so convinced by the overwhelming evidence, he committed his life to Jesus Christ!

What changed his mind? What evidence did Dr. Greenleaf encounter that so drastically turned him around? What facts did he discover that he could not rationally ignore?

To get answers to these questions and more click on the link below.

http://www.av1611.org/resur.html

Blabla bla. . .More nonsense drivel. . .Where is the location of the empty tomb you claim is still in existence?

mazaje:

Blabla bla. . .More nonsense drivel. . .Where is the location of the empty tomb you claim is still in existence?

While you are still looking for the empty tomb can you tell us whether your brain exists? if it does have you seen it? and if the answer is no can we then conclude that it (your brain) does not exist?

mazaje:

Blabla bla. . .More nonsense drivel. . .Where is the location of the empty tomb you claim is still in existence?

OLAADEGBU:

While you are still looking for the empty tomb can you tell us whether your brain exists? if it does have you seen it? and if the answer is no can we then conclude that it (your brain) does not exist?

@Olaadegbu: LOL! Good one. He may resort to devices like a computer tomographic scan to prove that his brain exists, but may I also ask him to prove that his MIND exists? And his emotions?

"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." -- 1 Cor. 15:14 (The Evidence Bible)

If Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, then the Scriptures is a fraud and any hope of resurrection is therefore in vain.  However, God has given us irrefutable evidence in His Word to strengthen our faith which are historical, scientific, medical, archaelogical and prophetic evidence.  Many intelligent "atheists" as are listed below have taken up this challenge and put their brains and research abilities into action to find out the truth and as you will find out they were not dissapointed.

And finally, the resurrection can be believed because learned men, who have studied and researched it believe in it. Take for example:

[list]
[li]Dr. Paul L. Maier (professor of ancient history) maintains: "No shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy or archaeology that would disprove that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the 1st Easter."[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]Dr. Simon Greenleaf (a Harvard University professor of Law) states: "According to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history."[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]Dr. Frank Morrison (a rationalistic lawyer) decided to take three years off from his practice to disprove the resurrection.  After three years of study, he found that the sheer weight of the evidence compelled him to conclude that Jesus actually did rise from the dead. As a consequence he wrote the book: Who Moved the Stone?[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]C.S.Lewis (a literary genius) was also interested in the accuracy of the resurrection. After evaluating the basis and evidence for Christianity, Lewis concluded that in other religions there was 'no such historical claim as in Christianity.'  He was too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospel as myth. He had no other choice but to accept the resurrection as fact.[/li]
[/list] 

http://debate.org.uk/topics/theo/resurrec.htm

Dr. Simon Greenleaf (a Harvard University professor of Law) states: "According to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history."

Mavenb0x:

@Olaadegbu: LOL! Good one. He may resort to devices like a computer tomographic scan to prove that his brain exists, but may I also ask him to prove that his MIND exists? And his emotions?

Do these so called atheists even believe that they have a soul in the first place? It is ridiculous for them to insists on the computer tomographic scan before they believe that they have a brain. They will still have to believe the results of the scan which is also a measure of faith since they cannot see it with their naked eyes except they decide to split their heads open.

OLAADEGBU:

While you are still looking for the empty tomb can you tell us whether your brain exists? if it does have you seen it? and if the answer is no can we then conclude that it (your brain) does not exist?

Here is a picture of the Human brain.



Can you show me and mazaje the picture of the empty tomb of Jesus which you claim still exists?

Mavenb0x:

Dr. Simon Greenleaf (a Harvard University professor of Law) states: "According to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history."

What are the so called evidence? . As mazaje has said, there is more evidence to show that Mohammed ascended into heaven on the back of a horse than that of the resurrection of Jesus.

toneyb:

Here is a picture of the Human brain.



Can you show me and mazaje the picture of the empty tomb of Jesus which you claim still exists?

Yes I believe that is a picture of a human brain, but the question is, do you need a picture of your own brain for you to believe that it exists? and if not does that mean that you don't have a brain?

OLAADEGBU:

Yes I believe that is a picture of a human brain, but the question is, do you need a picture of your own brain for you to believe that it exists? and if not does that mean that you don't have a brain?

What is it with you are all these LAME analogies? The empty tomb of Jesus you claim still exists is where? Do you have any picture of it or where you simply lying as usual?

Mavenb0x:

Dr. Simon Greenleaf (a Harvard University professor of Law) states: "According to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history."

Yes. His three-volume work, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence has been considered by the Supreme Court to be the greatest single authority on legal evidence. Dr. Greenleaf said:

"If the evidence for the resurrection was set before any unbiased courtroom in the world it would be judged to be an historical fact -- Jesus Christ rose from the dead!"

These are those I call learned men who use their God given brains.

OLAADEGBU:


"If the evidence for the resurrection was set before any unbiased courtroom in the world it would be judged to be an historical fact -- Jesus Christ rose from the dead!"

And Mohammed ascended into heaven on the back of a white horse.

This is what an attorney said:

"Nothing in Law so convinces courts and juries of the truthfulness of a story as the fact that a man's life has been consistent with such story." -- Henry Barnett, attorney.

It is true that the resurrection is consistent with the life of Jesus Christ, it bonds remarkably well with all of Jesus' life.

Others like B. Lord Lyttleton and Gilbert West who were friends at Oxford came to the same conclusions in their missions to disprove the historical facts of the gospel.

Lyttleton tried to prove that Saul was never converted and Gilbert West tried to prove Christ never rose from the dead both arrived at different results to their surprise. 

Wise men still seek Christ.

toneyb:

What is it with you are all these LAME analogies? The empty tomb of Jesus you claim still exists is where? Do you have any picture of it or where you simply lying as usual?

The fact that you cannot see history, neither can you see your brain yet you believe in their existence tells me what you are willing to believe despite the fact that you have no prove. Do you have to see the picture of your brain before you believe that you have one?

Garry T. Ansdell (D.D.) made a case out of this when he stated that "The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is evidential:

the empty tomb still exists,

Where is this empty tomb that still eixts?

toneyb:

Where is this empty tomb that still eixts?

Where is the picture of your brain if it exists?

OLAADEGBU:

Where is the picture of your brain if it exists?

It's clear you have ran out of gas.

toneyb:

It's clear you have ran out of gas.

No matter how much you atheists like to pretend that you don't believe until you see the physical evidence the fact remains that you still have a whole lot of presuppositions that you assume is true even if you have no empirical evidence. Even having a relationship with the opposite sex needs some degree of faith.

"But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him" -- Hebrews 11:6

Try to establish any sort of friendship without faith and see where you will end up. Walk up to a lady and introduce yourself. When she tells you her name, say, "I don't believe you," Watch her reaction. When she tells you where she works, say that you don't believe that neither. If you carry on like that for a while I will not be surprised if you get a black eye from dirty slaps in quick successions. Your lack of faith in her is a strong insinuation that she is a liar.

If she a mere mortal, feels insulted by your lack of faith in her word, how much more do you insult the Almighty God by refusing to believe His Word. In doing so, you are saying that God isn't worth trusting and that He is a liar and a deceiver. The Bible says, "He that believes not God has made Him a liar" (1 John 5:10). It also says, "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you and evil heart of unbelief . . ." (Heb.3:12). The command of the Scriptures is, "Have faith in God" (Mark 11:22). If a meaningful human relationship cannot be established without faith, what sort of relationship could we expect to have with God, if by our unbelief we continue to call Him a liar?