History Facts: 10 Reasons to accept Jesus Christ’s Resurrection

History Facts:

10 Reasons to accept Jesus Christ’s Resurrection

10 Reasons to Accept the Resurrection of Jesus as an Historical Fact

By Brian Chilton

When I left the ministry due to my skepticism, one of the factors involved in my departure concerned the reliability of the New Testament documents and the resurrection of Jesus. The folks from the Jesus Seminar had me second-guessing whether I could trust what the New Testament said and if I could truly accept the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. In July of 2005, my life changed. I entered the Lifeway Christian Bookstore in Winston-Salem, North Carolina and read three books that changed my life more than any other book outside the Bible. I discovered Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ, Josh McDowell’s The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, and McDowell’s A Ready Defense. I discovered that there are many reasons for accepting the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as a historical fact.

Through the years, the evidence has increasingly mounted for the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection. This article will provide 10 of the most fascinating arguments for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. This list is not exhaustive and my dealings with each argument is extremely brief. Nevertheless, I hope this list will provide a starting point for you to consider the authenticity of Jesus’s resurrection.

  1. The First Eyewitnesses were Women. The first eyewitnesses of the resurrection were women. All the Gospels note that the first individuals to discover the tomb empty were women. Matthew notes that “After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to view the tomb…The angel told the women, ‘Don’t be afraid, because I know you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here. For he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the play where he lay” (Matthew 28:1, 5-6).[1] Women were not held in high esteem. In Greco-Roman culture, a woman’s testimony was not admissible in court. In Jewish circles, it took the testimony of two women to equate that of one man. If one were to invent a story, the last people one would place as the first witnesses would have been women, unless it were otherwise true.
  2. Minimal Facts Concerning the Resurrection. Gary Habermas has popularized the so-called minimal facts argument for the resurrection. The minimal facts are those things that are accepted by nearly all New Testament scholars. The minimal facts are “1. Jesus died by crucifixion. 2. Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them. 3. The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed. 4. The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed. 5. The tomb was empty.” [2] These facts are nearly universally accepted by New Testament scholars, including liberals.
  3. Transformation of the Early Disciples. As noted in the minimal facts, James, the brother of Jesus, was changed from a skeptic to a believer because of the resurrection. James along with his brothers did not believe in Jesus during Jesus’s early ministry (see John 7:5). However, Jesus appeared to James (1 Corinthians 15:3-9) and James became a leader in the early Jerusalem church. His death is recorded by Josephus.[3] Paul is another example of one who was completely transformed by the resurrection of Jesus. Paul had been a persecutor of the church. After witnessing the risen Jesus, Paul became a proclaimer for the church.
  4. Embarrassing Details of the Resurrection. Historically speaking, embarrassing details add veracity to a historical claim. The fact that women were the first witnesses, that a member of the Sanhedrin (the same Sanhedrin that executed Jesus) had to give Jesus a proper burial, and that the disciples were fearful and fled all serve as embarrassing factors for the resurrection account.
  5. Willingness to Die for What Was Known. Many people will die for what they believe to be true. But no one will die for something they erroneously invented. The disciples knew if they were telling the truth. Yet, one finds that the disciples were willing to die for what they knew to be true. Stephen died by stoning (Acts 7:54-60), James of Zebedee died by the sword at the hands of Herod (Acts 12:2), James the brother of Jesus died,[4] and Peter and Paul died at the hands of Nero.[5]
  6. Documentary Evidence. The documentary evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is quite good. The historian seeks to find how many primary and secondary sources[6] can be gathered for an event to determine the event’s historicity. Concerning primary sources, the resurrection has Matthew’s account, John’s account, and Paul’s account in 1 Corinthians 15, including the additional references by James (if one accepts that James wrote the letter attributed to him) and Jude. The following are secondary sources for the resurrection: Luke, Mark, Clement of Rome, and to a lesser degree Ignatius and Irenaeus.
  7. Circumstantial Evidence. Douglas Groothius notes that circumstantial evidence for the historicity of the resurrection is “namely, the practice of the early church in observing baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Sunday worship.”[7] Baptism is based upon the analogy of Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection. The Lord’s Supper is a symbol of Christ’s sacrificial death. In addition, it is quite odd that faithful Jews would move their worship from a Friday evening into Saturday to a Sunday morning unless something major had occurred on a Sunday morning. The major Sunday morning event was Jesus’s resurrection.
  8. The Missing Motive. J. Warner Wallace has noted in his lectures and books that when a conspiracy is formed, three motivating factors are behinds such a move—power, greed, and/or lust.[8] The disciples would hold no power behind claiming the resurrection as history. They were running around while often being threatened by the Jewish and Roman authorities. As far as greed, they taught that one should not desire earthly possessions, but spiritual ones. Lust was not a factor, either. They taught celibacy before marriage and marital fidelity after marriage. In fact, N. T. Wright notes in his classic book, The Resurrection of the Son of God, that the disciples had no theological motivation behind claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead as they were anticipating a military hero and a final resurrection at the end of time. What motivating factors existed for these disciples to invent such a story? None! The only reason the disciples taught the resurrection of Jesus was because Jesus’s resurrection had occurred.
  9. Enemy Attestation of the Resurrection. Historically speaking, if one holds enemy attestation to an event, then the event is strengthened. When one considers the claims of the authorities that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus (Matthew 28:11-15), the testimony of the resurrection is strengthened. The early belief that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus is strengthened by the discovery of the Nazareth Inscription that orders capital punishment for anyone who steals a body from a tomb.[9] In addition, several refences to Jesus and his resurrection include citations from Josephus,[10] Tacitus,[11] and Suetonius[12] among others (including the Babylonian Talmud).
  10. Multiple Post-Resurrection Eyewitnesses. Finally, there is multiple eyewitness testimony pertaining to the resurrection of Jesus. Several people had seen Jesus alive for a period of 40 days. The eyewitnesses include Mary Magdalene (John 20:10-18), the women at the tomb accompanying Mary (Matthew 28:1-10), the Roman guards (Matthew 28:4), the Eleven disciples (John 21), the two men on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35), an indeterminate number of disciples (Matthew 28:16-20); over five-hundred disciples (1 Corinthains 15:6), to James (1 Corinthians 15:7) and to Paul (1 Corinthians 15:8-9). I am certain that there were many other witnesses that are unnamed.

Bonus:

Reason number 11: Additional witnesses in the Western Hemisphere

Translation of records of a Christian colony in ancient America documents a visit of the resurrected Jesus Christ to Central America, and that 2500 people witnessed His visit, and felt the scars in His hands and feet. ~C.D.

 

How to help strengthen the faith of the rising generation

 

Conclusion:

Many other evidences could be given for the resurrection of Jesus. Thinking about the methods of history, one must understand that there is a reason why American accept the first President of the United States as George Washington and not Spongebob Squarepants. History backs up the claim that Washington was the first President. In like manner, history backs up the reality of Jesus’s resurrection. Now the question is this: what will you do with such information? Some will try to ignore the event. Some will try to dismiss it. Others will acknowledge the factual nature of the event and worship Jesus as the risen Lord. It is my prayer that you will do the latter.

See how you can draw your family closer to God in these troubled times

 


 Notes

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

[2] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 48-50, 64-69.

[3] Josephus, Antiquities XX.200.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Eusebius, Church History XXV.5.

[6] Primary sources are documents written by eyewitnesses. Secondary sources are documents written by individuals who know eyewitnesses. For instance, my grandfather was an eyewitness to the biggest naval battle in World War II history. From the information my dad gathered from him, he would be a secondary source, whereas my grandfather would have been a primary source.

[7] Douglas Groothius, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove; Nottingham, UK: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2011), 553-554.

[8] See J. Warner Wallace, “Rapid Response: I Think the Disciples Lied About the Resurrection,” Cold-case Christianity.com (October 17, 2016), retrieved April 11, 2017, http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016/rapid-response-i-think-the-disciples-lied-about-the-resurrection/.

[9] See http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/07/22/The-Nazareth-Inscription-Proof-of-the-Resurrection-of-Christ.aspx#Article.

[10] Josephus, Antiquities XX.9.1.

[11] Tacitus, Annals XV.

[12] Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars-Claudius 25 and Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars-Nero 16.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2ppUPKK

 

Science Facts: Most Global Warming is Junk Science, no Scientific Method used

Science Facts:

Most Global Warming is Junk Science, no Scientific Method used

Study: <1% Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method

Allum Bokhari

 

When I was in college 40 years ago, all science was conducted using the scientific method. It was a matter of integrity. Now everything is based on political opinion. Most so-called scientists don’t even know what the scientific method is. ~C.D

Fewer than 1 percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method, according to research by Wharton School professor and forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong.

Professor Armstrong, who co-founded the peer-reviewed Journal of Forecasting in 1982 and the International Journal of Forecasting in 1985, made the claim in a presentation about what he considers to be “alarmism” from forecasters over man-made climate change.

“We also go through journals and rate how well they conform to the scientific method. I used to think that maybe 10 percent of papers in my field … were maybe useful. Now it looks like maybe, one tenth of one percent follow the scientific method” said Armstrong in his presentation, which can be watched in full below. “People just don’t do it.”

Armstrong defined eight criteria for compliance with the scientific method, including full disclosure of methods, data, and other reliable information, conclusions that are consistent with the evidence, valid and simple methods, and valid and reliable data.

8 Criteria for Scientific Method (Empiricism)

Digging deeper into their motivations, Armstrong pointed to the wealth of incentives for publishing papers with politically convenient rather than scientific conclusions.

“They’re rewarded for doing non-scientific research. One of my favourite examples is testing statistical significance – that’s invalid. It’s been over 100 years we’ve been fighting the fight against that. Even its inventor thought it wasn’t going to amount to anything. You can be rewarded then, for following an invalid [method].”

They Cheat

“They cheat. If you don’t get statistically significant results, then you throw out variables, add variables, [and] eventually you get what you want.”

“My big thing is advocacy. People are asked to come up with certain answers, and in our whole field that’s been a general movement ever since I’ve been here, and it just gets worse every year. And the reason is funded research.”

“I’ve [gone through] my whole career, with lots of publications, and I’ve never gotten a research grant. And I’m proud of that now.”

Armstrong concluded his talk by arguing that scientific evidence should be required for all climate regulations.

Why?

According to Armstrong, very little of the forecasting in climate change debate adheres to these criteria. “For example, for disclosure, we were working on polar bear [population] forecasts, and we were asked to review the government’s polar bear forecast. We asked, ‘could you send us the data’ and they said ‘No’… So we had to do it without knowing what the data were.”

According to Armstrong, forecasts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violate all eight criteria.

“Why is this all happening? Nobody asks them!” said Armstrong, who says that people who submit papers to journals are not required to follow the scientific method. “You send something to a journal and they don’t tell you what you have to do. They don’t say ‘here’s what science is, here’s how to do it.’”

Science Facts, Science Fiction, Darwin Evolution, and Academic Freedom

Science Facts, Science Fiction, Darwin Evolution, and Academic Freedom

Unexpected Results From A Poll About Teaching Science

Their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and . . .the people . . .could not understand them. ~Omni 1:17

Dr. Carolyn Reeves

http://www.undergroundparadigm.com

A 2016 national poll of a cross-section of American adults revealed unexpected results. The participants included representative numbers of men, women, Democrats, Republicans, Theists, Atheists, Agnostics, and four age groups from 18-60+. According to the poll, 94% believe students, teachers, and scientists should have the academic freedom to objectively discuss both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution. Another finding in the poll was that 94% think “It is important for policymakers and the public to hear from scientists with differing views.”

 

False news has been a reoccurring topic in today’s culture for some time. A near relative to false news is ignored news. News worthy stories can be selectively ignored by the media or they can be twisted until the meaning is altered. There are two areas that are reported in these two categories more than their share of the time. These are Darwinian evolution and climate change.

There is a general assumption among the media that Darwinian evolution and climate change are now established facts and should be taught in classes as the only accurate scientific explanations for origins and climate. The fact is, there have been a number of news -worthy stories about these topics that have been ignored or given an altering twist.

Stories that oppose traditional positions about evolution and climate change are routinely passed over as religiously based, illegal in public schools, material that is flawed and biased, or not worthy of mainstream reputable news. When they are given time in news media, the articles often contain misrepresented information. This article is being written to challenge the false news and ignored news that is prevalent in articles that do not agree with mainstream science.

What do the majority of ordinary citizens think about the right to discuss dissenting scientific views on such topics? Readers may find the answer surprising!

A 2016 national poll of a cross-section of American adults revealed unexpected results. The participants included representative numbers of men, women, Democrats, Republicans, Theists, Atheists, Agnostics, and four age groups from 18-60+. According to the poll, 94% believe students, teachers, and scientists should have the academic freedom to objectively discuss both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution. Another finding in the poll was that 94% think “It is important for policymakers and the public to hear from scientists with differing views.”

Most Americans do not realize there has been a long history of punishing and censoring scientists who criticize or express doubts about the official versions of evolution and climate change. Many scientists have been demoted, fired, or harassed for expressing such ideas, even though many of their ideas were based on well-researched scientific principles. This is not something of which most Americans approve. The poll found that 84% agreed with this statement: “ Attempts to censor or punish scientists for holding dissenting views on issues such as evolution or climate change are not appropriate in a free society. “

Two states have proposed and are debating academic freedom bills—SB 55 in South Dakota and HB 1485 in Texas. These bills will give teachers the academic freedom to teach both the strengths and weaknesses of controversial scientific standards that are already in the approved curricula. Texas is in the middle of streamlining their science standards, which already contains some provisions for considering scientific strengths and weaknesses of scientific topics. If parent in these states are representative of this poll, their legislators should already know that this is a bill that parents will approve. Parents in other states that do not already have similar bills might want to consider talking to their legislators about introducing academic freedom bills in their states.

When scientists disagree about some issue or idea and are free to openly debate the weaknesses and strengths of the issue, real science is being done. When only one side of an issue is allowed to be taught and discussed, especially in schools, this is no more than indoctrination.

It will be interesting to see how media cover a new movie documentary entitled “Is Genesis History?” The project was put together by Del Tackett,who interviewed thirteen PhD scientists with a variety of scientific specialties. It is chock full of scientific information taken from the research of these scientists.

The information may be ignored; it may be twisted. It’s always possible the information will be given a fair hearing by the scientific experts, but if past history is an indicator, this is not like to happen.

What if both sides of the Darwinian evolution controversy and both sides of the climate change controversy presented their evidence for their favored theory to a competent, well qualified group of scientists? What if it were set up like a jury trial with evidence from both sides of the issue discussed openly and fairly and with an unbiased judge to oversee the presentations?

Even more, I would like to see this kind of situation in science classrooms with students free to discuss the issues and the evidence. This is what South Dakota and Texas how to see also.

Teach your Young Adults about the Creation with this engaging and wholesome classic

 

 

Gallery

Culture Wars: Cultural Marxism vs. Judeo-Christian Culture

This gallery contains 3 photos.

Culture Wars: Cultural Marxism vs. Judeo-Christian Culture How Cultural Marxism stole our culture Having grown up during the 1950s, I have seen how our beloved country has tragically changed during my lifetime, but I did not know how it started … Continue reading

History Heroes: Immigration Quotes

History Heroes:

Immigration Quotes

reagan2resizeA nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation. ~Ronald Reagan

Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have from for but one flag, the American flag . . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language . . . and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people. ~Theodore Roosevelt, 1919

 

Founders’ Wisdom

America’s Founders were joined in purpose: to pursue and protect individual liberty. But due to the left’s decades-long obsession with multiculturalism—because they find every other culture superior to ours—the unique, unified, successful American culture is being replaced by dysfunctional Third World attitudes. ~Rush Limbaugh

jeffersontyrannygovMay not our government be more homogenous, more peaceable, more durable? Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of a half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here. ~Thomas Jefferson, 1787

The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass. . .it ha served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. ~Alexander Hamilton, 1802

The safety of a republic depends essentially on  the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.” ~Alexander Hamilton, 1802

alexanderhamiltonForeigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments. . .The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend. . .to confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency. ~Alexander Hamilton

Biblical Worldview, Character Education, and Moral Compass

Biblical Worldview, Character Education, and Moral Compass

Why the Bible Matters: Defining Right and Wrong

keyThere is a right and wrong to every question—Paying attention to your conscience is what helps you develop good character.

Do what is right; be faithful and fearless.

right-wrongsignOnward, press onward, the goal is in sight.

Eyes that are wet now, ere long will be tearless.

Blessings await you in doing what’s right!

Do what is right; let the consequence follow.

Battle for freedom in spirit and might;

and with stout hearts look ye forth till tomorrow.

God will protect you; then do what is right!

~Anonymous; The Psalms of Life, Boston, 1857

 

See More Defining Moments

Month-Defining Moment

Truth-Zone

 Birthright

More about Birthrightbirthright_cvr

A historical novel by C.A. Davidson

picnicwyouthIn this excerpt from the historical novel Birthright,  college history professor Jacob Nobles uses discovery teaching and ancient ruins at a historic site to lead his students in a discussion of truth, and discerning right from wrong.

      “Okay—” Preston spoke with caution. “I’ll give you that the Bible is actually a history. But why does it matter?

                “That is the million-dollar question …” Jacob smiled. “And you can find the answer here—for free!

                Jacob held up the Bible. “Now, Preston, you have asked why the Bible matters. Would you agree that the Bible is a history of God’s dealings with man?”

creationhands                “I guess you could say that. Apparently, somehow God’s version of the creation was given to Moses, and Moses wrote it down,” Preston commented carefully.

                “It makes sense to take God’s word for it,” Allison remarked with her usual bluntness. “After all, He was there when it happened—a distinction the rest of us cannot claim.”

                Preston shook his head. “Still, none of us were there for the creation process—not even Moses.”

                “That’s true.” Jacob chewed thoughtfully on his ham sandwich and inclined his head. “Hmm. So we have here two explanations for the Creation process—to keep it simple, we’ll call them two different stories. Since we were not present for the event, we’re forced to accept either one story or the other—on faith.”

                Puzzled, Preston tilted his head.

“What is faith, anyway?”

  “Well now, faith is to hope for things which are not seen but which are true,”[1] Josiah Bianco said.

 shepherdboy               Folding his arms across his chest, Preston surveyed the surrounding hills and glimpsed a boy leading a few sheep. “Are you saying that everybody just blindly follows …” He paused. “I’m sorry. I don’t mean to offend.”

                “No offense taken.”

                “Don’t worry,” Ben said. “We all have done the same thing.”

                “Really?”

                “Of course. It’s called academic freedom.”

  “Sure. Bring it on!” Allison took a sip out of her can of grape juice. “Only frauds and liars are afraid to answer questions.”

                “Why is Dr. Marlow so afraid of other points of view?” Nola asked.

                “He doesn’t want to lose the debate!” Allison interjected.

“Yes. Debate is an important part of academic freedom, but anyone can win an argument without teaching truth. A friendly discussion with free exchange of ideas is more effective in discovering truth.” Jacob chuckled. “However, when you prefer to control what others say and think, truth can get in your way.

   “Now that we are away from the university, we can actually look at more than one point of view! We will look at two stories of the Creation—one, in the Bible, and the other, Dr. Marlow’s version.”

                “The Bible version seems too simple,” Preston said.

                “Well, what is Dr. Marlow’s version called?” Nola inquired.

                “Dr. Marlow believes in a theory called Natural Selection which, simply put, proposes that everything somehow creates itself by chance,” Jacob replied.

                “That doesn’t make sense.” Nola frowned in disagreement. “The human body—and mind—are complicated. Something can’t be produced by nothing.[2] My experience has shown me that nothing worthwhile happens by chance. Everything takes work, and effort, and planning.

                “Yes, Nola. That’s why some scientists say that the Bible history discloses an intelligent design, a purpose, or an orderly plan.”

                “Aren’t Bible stories for children?” Preston wondered.

                “Men struggle to explain their philosophy. The Bible explains the Creation so a child can understand—so that parents can teach their children through the ages. Who is more intelligent?” Jacob shrugged. “Anyway, the important thing is, who is telling the truth—Man, or God?”

                “Can you just assume there is a God?”

Preston asked.

Jacob laughed. “We can look at some evidence. Where is evidence of chance?”

            No one answered for a moment.

            Josiah Bianco chortled. “Shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not?” he quipped, quoting Isaiah.[1]

[1] Isaiah 29:16

“What about evidence of design?”

                “The ability to think, for one thing,” Allison said, “ …one of many.”

                “As I said, the human body,” Nola added, “and life itself. I know many very intelligent scientists and doctors, but no one can earimageduplicate an eye or an ear.”               

  Preston’s gaze rested momentarily upon Nola’s face—round blue eyes, delicate sculpted features like a work of art. “All right,” he said. “Let’s say God is the intelligent Creator. Couldn’t He have made man out of apes?”

“Of course, He could, but would He? He is a God of order. As Creator of earth and all living things, He set up the rules for justice and science. Why would He violate His own laws?”[3]

         “What do you mean?”

                “Okay, if the Bible is really a history, and if it is true that we humans are created in the image of God, how are we different from animals?”

                “We can reason, while animals use instinct,” Preston said. “You’ve already established that.”

teotihuacanserpent               “Humans can draw, read, and write,” Allison said. “I have yet to see an animal who could carve something like this creature.” She poked her finger into the big teeth of the dragon carving, but withdrew her hand quickly. “Yikes! I don’t think an animal would make something this weird, even if it could!”

Free Will

  Jacob grinned. “True. Also, you chose to come here today, others did not. Ruben left early; the rest of you stayed. What does that mean?”

                “People have the power to choose,” Ben said.

                “Yes, that’s called Free Will. We have no empirical evidence of such a thing, but let’s suppose we have here a creature who is half man and half ape—by whose laws would this creature live—by the laws of man or nature? You’re the law student here, Preston. What do you think?”

   “Uh …”

                “If the creature is half man, would it be fair to make him live like an animal? Or if he is half animal, and cannot reason fully as a man, would it be just to impose upon him the laws of men?”

                “This is really getting confusing!”

   “Yes, Preston, it is confusing. But when He had completed the creation, God blessed human beings and all living things to multiply, each after their own kind.[4] There is nothing confusing about that.”

                A flutter of wings announced the arrival of a dove which lit next to his mate upon a limb of the tall tree.

How Do You Know What Is True and Right?

“The human soul can never die. So you see, it is created, not evolved, because God is not the author of confusion.[5] Therefore, to avoid confusion, would you agree we need some kind of law to bring order and justice to our lives?”

                “Absolutely,” Preston said. “We must have justice.”

 KJV Bible              “Let’s think for a moment about the two kinds of laws—which law provides true justice? Dr. Marlow makes no distinction between humans and animals. His law is simple: those who are strong rule and prevail over everything and everyone else.” Jacob placed his right hand firmly upon the rock and continued. “The law of Nature requires animals to kill other animals for food. In the law of the Bible, on the other hand, God tells us not to kill or eat other people. Why not?”

“It’s wrong!” The students exclaimed indignantly, in vigorous unison.

                “How do you know it’s wrong?”

                Jacob waited.

                “Well,” Preston began slowly. “There simply is no justice in murder and cannibalism. I don’t know why … Somehow I just know that.”

compass liahona   “Men often create laws to try to change God’s commandments,” Jacob continued, “but God’s laws never change. When He created our eternal souls, He planted those unchangeable moral laws in our minds and hearts. It’s called—”

                “Our conscience.” Preston nodded. “Of course! I see that now.”

                “Yes. The Bible contains our true moral compass in writing. And that, Preston, is why the Bible matters.”

birthright_cvrCopyright © 2016 by C. A. Davidson

More about Birthright

[1] Hebrews 11:1

[2] John Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding; Great Books of the Western World, vol.35

[3] These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the Creator Himself in all His dispensations conforms. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1:59-60

[4] Genesis 1:22,24

[5] 1 Corinthians 14:33

Truth Matters: Science Facts vs. Fake News, Global Warming Hoax

Truth Matters:

Science Facts vs. Fake News, Global Warming Hoax

Another Huge Global Warming Data Scandal

Rush Limbaugh

global-warming-hoax1

RUSH: I need to tell you something that you’re not going to see in the Drive-By Media, and it’s huge. In setting this up, I want to remind you why I have spent so much time on the whole subject of climate change and global warming throughout the entirety of this program, 29 years.

A Front for Socialism

It is because that issue, climate change, contains every element of extreme liberalism and socialism that needs to be understood and opposed. Climate change, if they succeed in this, climate change is close to health care in terms of, if you get nationalized climate change, nationalized health care, then you are very close to totally controlling the way people live their lives.

You have succeeded in restricting people’s liberty and freedom in perhaps the greatest way you can. That’s why climate change or global warming, whatever you want to call it, is of such paramount importance to me, because it’s not just a single issue. It’s every wet dream the left has encapsulated in an issue. It has government control, it has tax increases, it has the expansion of government, it has decisions and mandates of what kind of car you can and can’t drive, what kind of food you can and can’t eat, what you can do with your own private property. It would go a long way to eliminating the concept of private property.

NOAA manipulated land readings

NOAA manipulated land readings

The unstable land readings: Scientists at NOAA used land temperature data from 4,000 weather stations (pictured, one in Montana, USA). But the software used to process the figures was bug-ridden and unstable. NOAA also used ‘unverified’ data that was not tested or approved. This data as merged with unreliable sea surface temperatures

I mean, it’s just horrible. And it turns out there’s yet another scandal of totally fake data that was purposely made up and lied about right before the Paris accords that was designed to sway duped nations into spending, wasting millions of dollars in implementing policies designed to stop runaway temperature increases when there have not been any. And the fake data came from the United States. It came from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the people that give you your weather forecast.

Data Science,Climate and satellites Consultant  John J Bates at his home in Arden North Carolina Picture Chris Bott

Data Science,Climate and satellites Consultant John J Bates at his home in Arden North Carolina Picture Chris Bott

It was exposed by a whistleblower in the organization who had seen enough, a scientist named Bates, a Dr. Bates, and he had had his fill of the lies and the distortions.

The Daily Mail on Sunday in the U.K. revealed a landmark paper exaggerated global warming. It was rushed through in time to influence the Paris Agreement. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules.

RUSH: To the global warming hoax. I want to remind you that Donald Trump is ridiculed to this day for claiming… All my little buddies on their tech blogs and many places on the left still ridicule Trump for claiming that global warming is a hoax started by the ChiComs to make American businesses uncompetitive. Now, global warming is a hoax. It is a hoax perpetrated on an unsuspecting population of the world who have been blamed for doing great damage to our climate through no fault of their own.

Liberal Lies

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for another great cartoon

cartoon-global-warming-hoaxThe CO2 is pollution. The stuff that you exhale is pollution. Barbecue pits and driving around your SUVs emits the greenhouse gas. The earth is broiling! The earth isn’t gonna be habitable in another 35 years. But there is redemption, and that is if you let government take over and if you stop driving these behemoth cars and let government tell you what kind of car to drive.

Stop eating Big Macs, beef, and all this other stuff and agree to tax increases and globalization. Let the United Nations basically determine how nations can function; then you can redeem yourself. And for every Prius you see on the road — for the most part, not all, but for the most part — you see a dupe. You see somebody who actually thinks they’re saving the planet, doing good. Everybody wants their lives to have meaning — and if you can save the planet, man, can you feel proud of yourself! You feel like your life has meaning.

So you go out, you buy an electric car or you keep your thermostat at 79 or 80 in the summer, and at 65 in the winter — and you sweat your butt off and then you freeze — and you’re saving the planet and all that. It’s bohunk. We don’t have the power to stop climate change, which means we don’t have the power to affect it at all. We can’t stop it. Lord knows we’ve been trying. Anyway, the point of all this is that there’s enough clear evidence out there that it is a hoax, that data is faked, that data is forged. But the Drive-Bys will not believe ’cause it’s a leftist cause, folks.

The reason that I’m so devoted to explaining this issue over and over is because it contains practically every aspect of liberalism that is dangerous.

That’s why it is a seminal issue to the left. Everything they want is wrapped up in it. Every bit of power, every bit of control. You couple climate change and health care, and freedom as you have known it ceases to exist. It is that evil, and it is that dangerous. And I’m gratified most polling data today shows that we’re nowhere near a majority of Americans who accept it or believe it or even consider it to be crucial.

It doesn’t stop the media from portraying it is an issue that all the right people agree with, that all the smart people agree on. If you don’t see this, then you’re a denier, you’re a kook, you’re equivalent to people that didn’t admit the Holocaust and so forth. The first substantive indication we had that this stuff is all faked and phonied up was a hack of an email server at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. in which the whistleblower there was somebody within the climate change movement, the so-called scientific community.

By the way, there’s another reason that… It’s real simple how this is not science. All you have to hear them say, “A consensus of scientists agree.”

There is no consensus in science. Science is not a democratic thing. It doesn’t get a vote.

A consensus of scientists thinking the earth is flat, for example, it doesn’t make the earth flat. There is no vote. A consensus of scientists doesn’t mean anything. In this issue, it means that they found all the scientists who are being paid via the grant process to produce research that the sponsors want.

global-warming-hoax4-moneyAnd they get their consensus. Algore has become filthy rich off of this hoax. The emails at East Anglia indicated — emails from scientist to scientist back and forth, back and forth — indicated and illustrated how they were changing and faking data from the Medieval period. They have to show throughout history temperatures much lower than today in order to make people believe that there’s an unstoppable warming going on that can be tied to industrialization. You go back to the Medieval period when we didn’t have any industrialization at all.

There were no fossil fuels, for example, so the only thing putting CO2 in the atmosphere was cows via methane and humans exhaling. But aside from that, you know, ’til the railroads came along and the Industrial Age. Smokestacks, factories, and this kind of thing. So they want to try to tie this unstoppable, dangerous warming to the invention of the combustible-fuel engine and progress related to that, as a means of indicting capitalism.

global-warming-hoax5-leaders-dupedClimate change is basically an anti-capitalist, pro-communist enterprise.

 

Truth unreported

You haven’t seen it yet, and I doubt you will see it. I know you won’t see this in the New York Times, and therefore my little tech blogger buddies will never see it. You won’t see it at BuzzFeed, which means my tech blogger buddies will not see it. You will not see this in the Washington Post; you won’t see it on the ABC, CBS, NBC. It’s in the Sunday edition of the U.K. Daily Mail. Headline:Exposed: How World Leaders Were Duped into Investing Billions Over Manipulated Global Warming Data — The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming.

“It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change. America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules.” In other words, the culprit in the latest exposing of the hoax is NOAA! They run all the weather satellites supposedly collecting all the temperature data.

FAKE NEWS:

chickenlittle1“The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

“The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 … never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected.” In other words, up until this report came out, there hadn’t been any warming, and the climate change people were alarmed.

This report says the fact that there was no warming was a mistake, that there was no pause, that record heat breaking had continued to happen when everybody thought there was no warming taking place. And they said instead of the fact that no warming took place that in fact temperatures have been rising faster than anybody expected.

This report was “launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

TRUTH:

global-warming-hoax2-big-gov” The problem these people are all having is there hasn’t been any warming in the last 15 to 18 years. Actually (sigh), even to say that gives their existence some credence. (sigh) But it has to be done to illustrate this.

There hasn’t been any warming! Their climate models said that by now temperatures would be X degree warmer and sea levels would be X centimeters higher.

None of it’s happened, and so they have to come up with an excuse for it. They have to come up with a reason for the “pause” in the warming. “The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organization that is the world’s leading source of climate data,” which is NOAA, “rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

“A high-level whistleblower has told” the Daily Mail… This is an American scientist. His name is [Dr. John] Bates, he works at NOAA, and he’s fed up seeing what he’s seeing. He told the U.K. Daily Mail “that [NOAA] breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and [U.K. Prime Minster] David Cameron at the U.N. climate conference in Paris in 2015,” . . . .

which, by the way, Trump says we’re pulling out of and we’re not gonna live by, and thank goodness for that.

But the whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.”

chickenlittle2They made it up, just exactly what happened with the email chains and threads at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. The report that was submitted to scientists and world leaders before the Paris meeting was never subjected to rigorous internal evaluation, the kind that this whistleblower himself had devised. This is the old peer review. They had not run the new report by anybody to let them review it, to make sure that it was right. It was not evaluated. Somebody just wrote it up and submitted it.

“Dr. Bates’ vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden –” He objected at the time, “You can’t do this. You can’t do this. We’re lying, it isn’t right.” But his superiors at NOAA overrode his observations in what he says is “a blatant attempt to intensify the impact of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.”

Again, the Pausebuster paper is the paper presented to people like Obama and others before the Paris meeting is to say, “You know what, that pause that we think we’ve had for 15 years, it actually hasn’t been a pause. We have been setting heat records these last 15 years. We need to act even faster than we ever knew.” It was all lies. There was no truth to it.

science-fraud-money-not-truth“The whistleblower’s disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal. … In an exclusive interview, Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data.”

 This does not surprise me. I think this whole movement is fraudulent because I don’t think that they can accurately tell us what global temperatures were in the 1600s and 1700s, the 1800s, just not possible. The tree trunk data, tree ring data, ice core, it’s all made-up stuff to be beyond our ability to comprehend. They’re scientists, they wear the white coats, we, therefore, believe them.

Cooler Today

global-warming-hoax5-noaa-adjusted-readingsThe ‘adjusted’ sea readings: Average sea surface temperatures are calculated using data from weather buoys (pictured). But NOAA ‘adjusted’ these figures upwards to fit with data taken from ships – which is notoriously unreliable. This exaggerated the warming rate, allowing NOAA to claim in the paper dubbed the ‘Pausebuster’ that there was no ‘pause’

The fact of the matter is it has been much warmer previous times on earth than it is today. That cuts against every theory they’ve got about industrialization and burning of fossil fuels creating CO2. But before you even get to that this whole thing is bogus to me because I don’t believe that we human beings are capable of doing what we are being accused of doing. Because if we were, we would be able to stop the process.

By the way, and I’m not convinced that the warming is bad, even if it is happening. And we know it is. The climate is never constant. You know, the big question for me, folks, is one about the vanity and the arrogance of all this. These people in the scientific community promoting this hoax have got everybody believing that the temperatures and the climate and everything as of this moment in the history of the earth is what’s normal, and any deviation from the present is a crisis.

 How do we know what is normal? You know, ice ages have lasted 10, 20, hundreds of years, and they ended. How did they end? What caused the ice to melt way back when before there was fossil fuel? Way before there was humanity living lives of progress, what ended ice ages? What brought about warming areas when we weren’t doing anything to cause it? The answer is, it’s way beyond our pay scale.

Hoax

global-warming-hoax3-swindleWe just simply don’t have the ability to do this. And the evidence is — to show you how inept they are, we supposedly have had a pause — this is how stupid they are, folks. Listen to me, look at me. We supposedly had a pause for 15 years. During those 15 years, why didn’t they say, “See? Our research is working. See? Our suggestions are working. Our reduction of CO2, our elimination of SUVs, our increased usage of the electric car, whatever, is working, we need to do more of this.”

Why did they greet the pause as a problem, instead of looking at it, “Wow, we can say we’re succeeding, we can say that we’re on the right track, we need to double down on the kind of restrictions we’ve already –

They’re so stupid politically they didn’t even realize an opportunity to claim success and credit. They saw a pause as panic city. I’m telling you, folks, this is the biggest bunch of fraud, one of the biggest hoaxes that has been perpetrated on a free people in I don’t know when.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/02/06/another-huge-global-warming-data-scandal/

 

Related Links

Culture Wars: Social Experiment, Immigration Ban Protesters, and Liberal Hypocrisy

Culture Wars:

Social Experiment, Immigration Ban Protesters, and Liberal Hypocrisy

Refugee in House (Social Experiment) at Muslim Ban Protest

 

Trump immigrant-ban protesters asked if they’d let refugees live with them. Here’s how they respond.

Well-known video prankster Joey Salads — who also performs self-described “mind-blowing social experiments” — said he conducted a mock solicitation on hidden camera at Los Angeles International Airport amid protests against Republican President Donald Trump’s temporary immigrant ban.

So, arming himself with spectacles and a “Feel the Bern” T-shirt, Salads went “undercover, as a leftist” to ask the question: Would protesters be willing to put their money where their mouths are and offer to let refugees live with them?

Approaching a group of protesters sitting on a ledge at LAX, Salads introduces himself as a member of an outfit that “just got approved by the commissioner of naturalization.”

He then asks if any protesters would be willing to “give donations or to possibly offer shelter.”

Salads’ first victim says, “I have no resources. Sorry.”

A second guy writes in a “small donation” on the clipboard, Salads notes in the video, but declines to offer shelter.

Another guy says he’s “not able to do that” when asked to provide shelter to refugees.

“I live with a man who is a Trump supporter,” one woman replies, “so I don’t think he’d go for it.”

“I’m very interested in helping,” one guy answers. “I’m a little apprehensive, and I also have a female roommate who’s, like, a very nervous girl … but I’m very interested.”

“How many refugees will you be willing to hold?” Salads asks him.

The guy says he has only a couch to spare.

When Salads tells him that would be enough — in addition to providing “food and water” — the guy wonders how long he’d have to keep that up.

“Until legislation passes,” Salads replies.

“I don’t know that I could commit to that,” the guy answers.

A female who told Salads she lives by herself and is “also apprehensive” did request to be added to an email list — but another who says she lives in a studio with her boyfriend indicates she doesn’t have enough space.

One guy standing on a ledge with signs around his neck gets a little miffed with Salads’ continued pressing: “I already answered you, OK?”

 

Trump immigrant-ban protesters asked to house refugees—oops!

Truth Matters: President Trump vs. Fake News

Truth Matters:

President Trump vs. Fake News

keyoldAnd those judges were angry with him because he spake plainly unto them concerning their secret works of darkness; nevertheless, they durst not lay their own hands upon him, for they feared the people lest they should cry out against them. ~Helaman 8:4

Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man. ~Colossians 4:6

Trump to Media: ‘Public Doesn’t Believe You People Anymore’

By Mark Swanson (Newsmax)

 

trump-calling-out-mediaPresident Donald Trump spent a significant part of his press conference Thursday – called to announce his new labor secretary nominee – stepping up his attacks on the mainstream media and debating several members of the press in attendance.

After announcing Alexander Acosta for labor secretary, Trump began prepared remarks by taking the media to task.

“I’m making this presentation directly to the American people . . . because many of our nation’s reporters and folks will not tell you the truth,” Trump said from the East Room of the White House.

“The press has become so dishonest that if we don’t talk about it we are doing a tremendous disservice to the American people – tremendous disservice,” Trump said. “We have to find out what’s going on because the press honestly is out of control.

I ran for president to represent the citizens of our country. I am here to change the broken system so it serves their families and their communities well. I am talking and really talking on this very entrenched power structure.

media1-harmful-swallowed“The level of dishonesty is out of control.”

During his question-and-answer period, Trump got into a debate with reporters over “fake news,” including with CNN’s Jim Acosta, a frequent Trump target.

“The reporting is fake. Jim, you know what it is, here’s the thing, the public isn’t — they read newspapers, they see television, they watch. They don’t know if it’s true or false because they are not involved. I’m involved. I’ve been involved with this stuff all my life,” Trump said.  

“So, I know when you are telling the truth or when you are not. I just see many, many untruthful things. I will tell you what else I see. I see tone. You know the word tone. The tone is such hatred,” Trump continued.

trump-thumbs-up“I want to see an honest press. When I started out by saying it’s important for the public to get an honest press. The public doesn’t believe you people anymore. But if you were straight, I would be your biggest booster. I would be your biggest fan.” 

Trump dismissed recent reports in The New York Times and CNN his campaign aides had been in contact with Russian officials before his election. Trump called Paul Manafort, his former campaign manager who has ties to Ukraine and Russia, a “respected man.”

Trump called the reports a “ruse” and said he had “nothing to do with Russia.” Trump added, “Russia is fake news. This is fake news put out by the media.”

Amid reports of widespread leaks within his administration, Trump also warned he would clamp down on the dissemination of sensitive information, saying he had asked the Justice Department to look into the leaks.

“Those are criminal leaks,” adding, “The leaks are real. The news is fake.”

Book Review: Historic Rescue of World War 2 Soldiers

Book Review:

Historic Rescue of World War 2 Soldiers

The Forgotten 500

Gregory A. Freeman

keyThe communists have always been experts at lies, deceit, and disinformation. This heart-wrenching story of courage and loyalty betrayed and smeared is but one example of their treachery. It took way too long for the truth to surface in this case. The media, which have bought into these lies and disinformation  for decades,  is in full swing today as well. It is our responsibility to discern and ferret out the truth, and do so relentlessly, so  that truth and innocent people are spared the evils of being sacrificed for political expediency. ~C.D.

 

forgotten-500-bookHere is the astonishing never-before-told story of the greatest rescue mission of World War II—when the OSS set out to recover more than five hundred airmen trapped behind enemy lines in Yugoslavia. . . .

During a bombing campaign over Romanian oil fields, hundreds of American airmen were shot down in Nazi-occupied Yugoslavia. Local Serbian farmers and peasants risked their own lives to give refuge to the soldiers while they waited for rescue, and in 1944, Operation Halyard was born. The risks were incredible. The starving Americans in Yugoslavia had to construct a landing strip large enough for C-47 cargo planes—without tools, without alerting the Germans, and without endangering the villagers. And the cargo planes had to make it through enemy airspace and back without getting shot down themselves.

Suppressed for more than half a century for political reasons, the full account of this unforgettable story of loyalty, self-sacrifice, and bravery is now being told for the first time ever. The Forgotten 500 is the gripping behind-the-scenes look at the greatest escape of World War II.

 

 

Disinformation and Betrayal

Draza Mihailovich, Serbian hero who steadfastly protected American airmen from Nazis

Draza Mihailovich, Serbian hero who steadfastly protected American airmen from Nazis

Serbian leader Draza Mihailovich was opposed to both Nazism and Communism and fiercely loyal to the Allies. However, Klugmann, one of several communist moles in Great Britain, spread disinformation and lies about him, and convinced Churchill and FDR that Mihailovich was in league with the Nazis. This kept Britain and American governments from supporting the Serbian locals of Yugoslavia, who were unwaveringly loyal to the Allies, who gave the American airmen the food off their own tables. The loving support of those villagers for those Americans is deeply moving.

Thanks to the help of those locals, 512 airmen were rescued, with no lives lost. Nevertheless, due to the influence of Klugmann and his minions, Mihailovich was subjected to a war crimes trial after the war, and convicted.

Americans were outraged when they learned of the government treachery. Churchill finally learned the truth, how he had been deceived, but it was too late. Only after the damage was done, was Eisenhower able to persuade Truman to give Mihailovich a posthumous  Legion of Merit award. Even then, the award was given in secret, and kept secret for 20 years, because the State Department was “concerned” about ruffling relations with the communist dictator Josip Tito, who handed Yugoslavia over the communists after the war.

 

Reagan Tribute to Mihailovich, and Warning

Ronald-Reagan-AP                Avowed anti-Communist Ronald Reagan, then governor of California and about to become president in the next year, paid respect to Mihailovich on September 8, 1979. He wrote to the California Citizent’s Committee to Commemorate General Draza Mihailovich:

I wish that it could be said that this great hero was the last victim of confused and senseless policies of Western governments i dealing with Communism. The fact is that others have suffered a fate similar to his by being embraced and then abandoned by Western government in the hope that such abandonment will purchase peace or security. Thus, the fate of General Mihailovich is not simply of historic significance—it teaches us something today as well. No Western nation, including the United States, can hope to win its own battle for freedom and survival by sacrificing brace comrades to the politics of international expediency.

 

Reagan went on to say that the betrayal of Mihailovich showed “beyond doubt that both freedom and honor suffer when firm commitments become sacrificed to false hopes of appeasing aggressors by abandoning friends.”