Essay Sample on Easter What Is Known About the History of Easter

Essay Sample on Easter What Is Known About the History of Easter This is an essay example on history of Easter. The evidence that Jesus was alive after the crucifixion is overwhelming, and scholars hardly ever argue otherwise. Jesus was seen in many different places and at different times after the crucifixion (John 20, 1 Cor. 15, Mark 16.7, etc.) Some people attempt to explain this by arguing that Jesus never died in the first place, and therefore never really resurrected as Christians claim. This theory is know as the Swoon Theory or the Resuscitation Theory, and was put forth by the German rationalist Venturini sometime in the eighteenth century. Even though there are presently an infinite amount of variations to this theory, they all basically hold that instead of dying, Jesus merely fainted or swooned from exhaustion. Jesus then resuscitated thanks to the effects of the cool damp grave he was placed in, and was finally able to present himself before His disciples as a risen king. In this essay I will explain the basis for the concoction of su ch a theory and the evidence that might support it, as well as give evidence, such as medical and historical facts, that will completely discredit it. Even though the Swoon theory contains very little facts that support it, there are a few events that happened in the crucifixion stories that are used as attempts to give it credibility. A German scholar by the name of Paulus Ð £points out that crucifixion was usually a slow, protracted dying Jesus died in an amazingly short time (Mark 15:44), therefore, he claims, Jesus was not really dead, but that he was in a death-like trance. Paulus also claims that Jesus only received a surface wound from the spear thrusted into his side, not a deathly one. Finally, he suggests that the aromatic spices and cool grave would have been influential enough to wake him up from this trance. Another argument is that the Bible contradicts itself and therefore should not be believed word for word. This is based on the fact that there are some variations in the stories of the crucifixion in the different gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. Scholars that support the Swoon Theory also use as evidence the date that the gospels were written. They believe that the gospels arent reliable because they are not eyewitness accounts. Mark, the earliest of the gospels probably wasnt written until 60 AD, a full generation after the events of Jesus life. Yet another excuse, or should I say piece of evidence used to defend this theory, is that the people back then were simply mislead because medical knowledge was not great at that time, so that the disciples, mistaking Him for dead, buried Him alive. This excuse would have also been sufficient to explain why the executioners confirmed Jesus dead (Mark 15.45). Even though the Swoon Theory has some evidence to back it up, there is much more evidence that discredits it. This theory is greatly flawed because it ignores a great part of the story. It is a classical example of approaching the evidence with a preconceived theory and selecting only those facts which support your view and rejecting all others. Some examples of ignored facts are that there were four highly trained executioners that verified JesusÐ ¢ death (John 19.32) and whos mistakes would have probably cause them there lives; another ignored fact is that the stone that covered the tomb was way to heavy for Jesus to roll away on His own, and even if He would have been able to, the tomb was heavily guarded (John 19.38) so that there was no way Jesus could have snuck out unnoticed. This list of ignored facts could go on and on for quite a while. With all the medical and scientific evidence that we have present today, confirming the events story of the crucifixion, as written in the Bible, and that Jesus did really die, is not very hard. Even in the case of someone brutally executed on a Roman cross two million years ago, medical evidence can still make a crucial contribution. Jesus death was the result of the contribution of many different events. Each event can be proved credible as follows. The first event took place in the garden of Gethsemane. Matthew 26.6 describes Jesus as sorrowful and deeply distressed as He prayed to His father. There is no doubt that Jesus knew what was going to happen to him the next day. In fact, it scarred Him so much, that He began to sweat blood (Luke 22.44). Many skeptics have claimed this physically impossible and used it to argue against the credibility of the Bible. But, according to Alexander Metherell, M.D, P.H.D, this is a know medical condition called hematidrosis associated with a hig h degree of psychological stress. He also claims that it would have made Jesus skin extremely fragile making him very sensitive to the floggings of the following day. Historians have concluded that Roman floggings were horribly brutal. Jesus would have been stripped of his clothes and then whipped with a flagrum that consisted of a sturdy handle to which were attached long leather thongs that had sharp jagged pieces of bone and lead woven into them. According to Dr. C. Truman Davis, this would have resulted I Jesus back, shoulders, and legs looking like an unrecognizable mass of torn, bleeding tissue, with skin hanging in long ribbons. After this, according to Roman tradition, a prisoner such as Jesus would have been mocked by the Roman soldiers. We can witness this in Mark 15.16-20. Verse 20 also says that a crown of thorns was placed on His head and verse 19, that he was beaten with a reed. According to Metherell, these events alone would have been enough to kill a man. But Jesus did not expire, not yet at least. He went on to endure much greater torture. Although not dead, Jesus did not walk away unharmed. Metherell says that Jesus would have faced the crucifixion while already in hypovolemic shock, meaning that He was suffering the effects of loosing a large amount of blood. Some of these effects described by Metherell are described in the gospels: blood pressure drops, causing fainting or collapse we see in Mat. 27.32 that Simon had to carry the crossbar for Jesus because He collapsed and could not carry it any further. Person becomes thirsty as the body craves fluids to replace the lost blood volume. In the John 19 we read about Jesus saying, I thirst and then being offered sour wine. Because of the terrible effects of this beating, theres no question that Jesus was already in serious to critical condition even before the nails were driven through his hands and feet. For many years critics argued that nails werent used to crucify a person, but that instead ropes were used. It wasnt until1968 that the Archaeologist V. Tzaferis discovered four cave-tombs just north of Jerusalem that put an end to these criticss argument. In one of these tombs, well-preserved bodies containing nails that pierced their wrists and ankles were found. These nails would have been driven through some major nerves and caused Jesus unbearable pain, so unbearable in fact, that a new word had to be invented to describe it: Excruciating meaning out of the cross. Metherell says that because of the way Jesus was hanging, His shoulders would have become easily dislocated therefore fulfilling the prophesy in Psalm 22.14. Usually the final thing that kills a person being crucified, including Jesus in this case, is asphyxiation Crucifixion is essentially an agonizingly slow death of asphyxiation leading to a heart attack. When a person is hanging on a cross, in order to exhale, an individual must push up on his feet to release the tension on his muscles. Eventually this person would be to exhausted to do this, which would prevent him from breathing. As a person slows down his breathing, he goes into what is called respiratory acidosis causing the acidity of the blood to increase, and leading to an irregular heartbeat. Eventually this person would have died of Cardiac arrest. The biggest piece of evidence that Jesus truly died is that blood and water were seen flowing from Jesus when He was stabbed in the side (John 19.34). The idea that water flew out is completely rejected, but Metherell claims that this fluid only appeared to be water, but was actually pericardial and pleural effusion. These clear fluids surround the heart (peri) and lungs (pleural) in great quantities when there is heart failure so that when ruptured by the spear they would have gushed out. They would have appearing as water, and then would have been followed by a lot of flowing blood. This gives John great credibility as an eyewitness, and proves that Jesus was in fact dead. Even if we pretend that Jesus was able to survive through all this abuse, assuming that a cool tomb would resuscitate Him rather than just finish Him off is assuming too much. Also, one has to take in account that Jesus would have had to escape his linen wrappings (Mat. 27.59), roll the huge rock away from the tomb entrance, and get by the guards (as mentioned before), all on pierced wrists and ankles. I conclude by confidently saying that the Swoon theory is completely flawed and must be discredited. It ignores the deadly character of the wounds inflicted upon Jesus, the frightful lacerations of the hands and feet, the loss of strength through the ebbing away of blood, the hopelessness of human aid during the critical moments when it would be most needed, the tight-drawn bandage of the grave, the heavy stone. But even if Jesus did accomplish all of this, there is no way that the disciples would have claimed Him the Risen Lord and Conqueror of death while seeing Him in the pathetic conditions he was left in. Instead, they would have felt sorry for Him.

The Effects of War on the Environment

The Effects of War on the Environment The natural environment has been a strategic element of war since the first rock was thrown by the first cave dweller. The armies of ancient Rome and Assyria, to ensure the total capitulation of their enemies, reportedly sowed salt into the cropland of their foes, making the soil useless for farming- an early use of military herbicide, and one of the most devastating environmental effects of war. But history also provides lessons in eco-sensitive warfare. The Bible, in Deuteronomy 20:19, stays the hand of the warrior to minimize wars impact on nature and men alike: When you besiege a city a long time, to make war against it in order to capture it, you shall not destroy its trees by swinging an axe against them; for you may eat from them, and you shall not cut them down. For is the tree of the field a man, that it should be besieged by you? War and the Environment: Weve Been Lucky so Far War is waged differently today, of course, and has widespread environmental impacts that last far longer. The technology has changed, and the potential effects of the technology are very different, says Carl Bruch, co-director of international programs at the Environmental Law Institute in Washington, D.C. Bruch, who is also the co-author of The Environmental Consequences of War: Legal, Economic, and Scientific Perspectives, notes that modern chemical, biological, and nuclear warfare has the potential to wreak unprecedented environmental havoc that, fortunately, we havent seen- yet. This is a great threat, Bruch says. But in some cases, precision weapons and other technological advances can shield the environment by targeting key facilities, leaving other areas relatively unscathed. You could make the argument that these weapons have the ability to minimize collateral damage, says Geoffrey Dabelko, director of the Environmental Change and Security Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. Its Local: the Impact of War Today Warfare today also occurs infrequently between independent nations; more often, armed conflict breaks out between rival factions within a nation. These localized civil wars, according to Bruch, are usually beyond the reach of international treaties and bodies of law. Internal conflict is viewed as a matter of sovereignty- an internal matter, he says. As a result, environmental damage, like human rights violations, occurs unchecked by outside organizations. Though skirmishes, armed conflicts, and open warfare vary tremendously by region and by weapons used, the effects of war on the environment usually involve the following broad categories. Habitat Destruction and Refugees Perhaps the most famous example of habitat devastation occurred during the Vietnam War  when U.S. forces sprayed herbicides like Agent Orange on the forests and mangrove swamps that provided cover to guerrilla soldiers. An estimated 20 million gallons of herbicide were used, decimating about 4.5 million acres in the countryside. Some regions are not expected to recover for several decades. Additionally, when warfare causes the mass movement of people, the resulting impacts on the environment can be catastrophic. Widespread deforestation, unchecked hunting, soil erosion, and contamination of land and water by human waste occur when thousands of humans are forced to settle in a new area. During the Rwandan conflict in 1994, much of that countrys Akagera National Park was opened to refugees; as a result, local populations of animals like the roan antelope and the eland became extinct. Invasive Species Military ships, cargo airplanes, and trucks often carry more than soldiers and munitions; non-native plants and animals can also ride along, invading new areas and wiping out native species in the process. Laysan Island in the Pacific Ocean was once home to a number of rare plants and animals, but troop movements during and after World War II introduced rats that nearly wiped out the Laysan finch and the Laysan rail, as well as bringing in sandbur, an invasive plant that crowds out the native bunchgrass that local birds depend on for habitat. Infrastructure Collapse Among the first and most vulnerable targets of attack in a military campaign are the enemys roads, bridges, utilities, and other infrastructure. While these dont form part of the natural environment, the destruction of wastewater treatment plants, for example, severely degrades regional water quality. During the 1990s fighting in Croatia, chemical manufacturing plants were bombed; because treatment facilities for chemical spills werent functioning, toxins flowed downstream unchecked until the conflict ended. Increased Production Even in regions not directly affected by warfare, increased production in manufacturing, agriculture and other industries that support a war effort can wreak havoc on the natural environment. During World War I, former wilderness areas of the United States came under cultivation for wheat, cotton, and other crops, while vast stands of timber were clear-cut to meet wartime demand for wood products. Timber in Liberia, oil in Sudan, and diamonds in Sierra Leone are all exploited by military factions. These provide a revenue stream that is used to buy weapons, says Bruch. Scorched Earth Practices, Hunting, and Poaching The destruction of your own homeland is a time-honored, albeit tragic, wartime custom. The term scorched earth originally applied to the burning of crops and buildings that might feed and shelter the enemy, but its now applied to any environmentally destructive strategy. To thwart invading Japanese troops during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), Chinese authorities dynamited a dike on the Yellow River, drowning thousands of Japanese soldiers- and thousands of Chinese peasants- while also flooding millions of square miles of land. Similarly, if an army crawls on its stomach, as is often says, then feeding an army often requires hunting local animals, especially larger mammals that often have lower rates of reproduction. In the ongoing war in Sudan, poachers seeking meat for soldiers and civilians have had a tragic effect on bush animal populations in Garamba National Park, just across the border in the Democratic Republic of Congo. At one point, the number of elephants shrunk from 22,000 to 5,000, and there were only 15 white rhinos left alive. Biological, Chemical, and Nuclear Weapons The production, testing, transport and use of these advanced weapons is perhaps the single most destructive effects of war on the environment. Though their use has been strictly limited since the bombing of Japan by the U.S. military at the end of World War II, military analysts have grave concerns about the proliferation of nuclear material and chemical and biological weaponry. Weve been very fortunate that we have not seen the devastation that we might see, says Bruch. Researchers point to the use of depleted uranium (DU) as one particularly dangerous military trend. DU is a byproduct of the uranium-enrichment process. Almost twice as dense as lead, its valued in weapons for its ability to penetrate tank armor and other defenses. An estimated 320 tons of DU were used in the Gulf War in 1991; in addition to soil contamination, experts are concerned that soldiers and civilians may have been exposed to dangerous levels of the compound. How Environmental Problems Lead to War While the effects of war on the environment may be obvious, whats less clear are the ways that environmental damage itself leads to conflict. Factions in resource-poor countries like those in Africa, the Mideast, and Southeast Asia have historically used military force for material gain; they have few other options. Bruch explains that once armed conflict begins, soldiers and populations under siege must find immediate sources of food, water, and shelter, so theyre forced to adapt their thinking to short-term solutions, not long-term sustainability. This short-term desperation leads to a vicious cycle of conflict, followed by people who meet their immediate needs in unsustainable ways, bringing deprivation and disillusionment, which then leads to more conflict. One of the chief challenges is to break that cycle, Bruch says. Can Warfare Protect Nature? It seems counterintuitive, but some have argued that military conflicts often end up preserving the natural environment. Its one of the findings thats utterly contrary to expectations, says Jurgen Brauer, Ph.D., professor of economics at Augusta State University in Augusta, Ga. The most preserved area in all of Korea is the demilitarized zone because you have the exclusion of human activity, he says. Other researchers have noted that despite the massive amounts of herbicide use during the Vietnam War, more forests have been lost in that country since the war ended than during it, due to peacetime commerce and Vietnams quest for prosperity. The coal-black skies caused by the Kuwaiti oil fires in 1991 provided dramatic visual evidence of war-related environmental damage. However, these oil fires burned in one month roughly the amount of oil burned by the United States in a single day. Peace can be damaging, too, says Dabelko. You have some of these ironic twists. But experts are quick to emphasize that this is not an argument in favor of armed conflict. War is not good for the environment, adds Brauer, who is also an author of War and Nature: The Environmental Consequences of War in a Globalized World. And Bruch notes that warfare only delays the environmental damage of peaceful human activity and commerce. It may provide a respite, but the long-term effects of war arent that different from what happens under commercial development, he says. Winning the Peace As military planning evolves, it becomes apparent that the environment now plays a greater role in successful combat, especially after an armed conflict ends. At the end of the day, if youre trying to occupy an area, you have a strong incentive not to ruin it, Dabelko says. The aforementioned biblical quote from Deuteronomy about preserving trees is, perhaps, good advice for the ages. And some warriors are learning that theres more to be gained from preserving the environment than in destroying it. In war-torn Mozambique, former military combatants have been hired to work together as park rangers protecting the wildlife and natural habitats that they once sought to destroy. That built bridges between the military and the park service. It has worked, Bruch says. Natural resources can be very important in providing jobs and opportunities in post-conflict societies.