Most people don’t care whether they own music downloads or not.
Of the more than 8 million people that are estimated to buy a Kindle this year, only a small fraction of them understand that the ebooks bought on the device are licensed – not owned – which means they can’t lend or sell their titles. By agreeing to Amazon’s terms of service, which they didn’t read, they’ve accepted these conditions. Soon, single ebook lending may be allowed on the Kindle, but users won’t be allowed to buy used ebooks.
The “first sale” doctrine indicates that consumers can sell their physical books, give them to a library, or do just about anything else. This legal principle covers CDs, DVDs, and videogames too. It enables the used marketplace and retailers like eBay and Amazon to exist and sell used titles. In the digital age, this concept is under fire. It’s no longer clear that consumers should be granted the same rights when they buy digital downloads.
You own an iPod and Kindle, but not the songs or books on them.
“In the context of a downloaded book or music file, the Copyright Office suggests that first sale rights could be limited to the medium used to make the copy,” Seth Greenstein writes. “In other words, to resell your digital downloads, you must also sell your hard drive, ebook reader, or iPod.” However, he notes, even those rights may be forfeited by “clicking” agree to the terms of service that Amazon and iTunes put forth.
This amounts to 10 billion music downloads – that nobody owns.
As far back as 2006, the RIAA said in a statement to MTV that, “Selling an iPod preloaded with music is no different than selling a DVD onto which you have burned your entire music collection. Either act is a clear violation of U.S. copyright law. The RIAA is monitoring this means of infringement.” To which they conclude, “In short: seller beware.”
So, fans can’t resell music downloads on eBay or Amazon – it’s not allowed. Nor can they try to sell an iPod that’s full of songs that you bought. That’s illegal. Thus, digital collections are worth nothing. And as I suggested, most people don’t care about this.
Should we care? Should digital collections be worth something? As someone that recently purchased an iPod and Kindle, this question has renewed interest to me.
What’s your take?
Should Digital Collections Be Worth Something?
Leadership Principles
2. Know Why You’re Here: Do it because it’s right, not because it’s right for your resume’
3. Think Independently: The person who sweeps the floor should choose the broom.
4. Build Trust: Care, Like you really mean it
5. Listen For The Truth: The walls talk
6. Be Accountable: Only the truth sounds like the truth
7. Take Action: Think like a person of action, and act like a person of thought
Howard Behar, former President of Starbucks.
Music Eases Cancer Pain
–>
Music Eases Cancer Pain
Listening to just thirty minutes of music significantly reduced pain and distress for cancer patients.
The patients were receiving medication, but still had pain.
Music reduced pain scores by more than 50 percent for almost half of them compared to fewer than 1 in 10 similar patients who just rested in bed.
Nurses randomly assigned Taiwanese patients to listen to their choice of music for 30 minutes or to rest without music. They measured pain at the beginning and end of the time using a visual scale.
42 percent who listened to music had their pain scores fall by 50 percent or more, compared to 8 percent of those who merely rested. A statistical test showed a large effect of the music for both changes in the sensation of pain and changes in the distress patients felt.
Patient had their choice of folk songs, Buddhist hymns , or American harp and piano music. Although 7 out of 10 chose the Taiwanese music, the American music was also enjoyed and effective.
Writing in the International Journal of Nursing Studies, lead author Shih-Tzu Huang said,
Offering a choice of familiar, culturally appropriate music was a key element of the intervention. Soft music was safe, effective, and liked by participants. It provided greater relief of cancer pain than analgesics alone. Thus nurses should offer calming, familiar music to supplement analgesic medication for persons with cancer pain.
SOURCE: Huang et al, International Journal of Nursing Studies, Volume 47, Number 11, November 2010.
What This Means for Patients
Sometimes the simple things that we do intuitively prove to be effective scientifically.
In this study music was not offered instead of medication, but in addition to it.
Patients also got to choose the music that they liked from culturally appropriate choices.
This simple method may help cancer patients both in the hospital and at home.
Posted by Kate Murphy on September 28th, 2010
Tags: cancer pain, complementary therapy
“RADICAL” by David Platt book review by @brucefrank1
I recently read the book Radical by David Platt. I can honestly say it challenged me as much as any book (other than the Bible) has in recent memory. The book is subtitled “taking back your faith from the American dream”, and Platt challenges you to consider how culture has tamed how radical the call to be a Christ follower really is. It is strong medicine but is delivered with both a humble and bold attitude. I have spent a little time with David and find that to be a good reflection of who he is. Some of the points that stuck out (or into) me were:
- “Plainly put, a relationship with Jesus requires total, superior, and exclusive devotion.” (see Luke 9:57-62)
- “We are giving in to the dangerous temptation to take the Jesus of the Bible and twist him into a version of Jesus we are more comfortable with. A nice, middle class, American Jesus.”
- “We have been told all that is required is a one-time decision, maybe even mere intellectual assent to Jesus, but after that we need not worry about His commands, His standards, or His glory…but the gospel demands and enables us to turn from our sin, to take up our cross, to die to ourselves, and to follow Jesus.”
- “This is the design of God among His people. He is giving unlikely people His power so it is clear who deserves the glory for the success that takes place.”
- “Every saved person this side of heaven owes the gospel to every lost person this side of hell.” (see Romans 1:14-16)
- God blesses us so we can bless others and glorify His great name. (see Psalm 23:3; Psalm 67; Isaiah 43:1-13)
- “Anyone wanting to proclaim the glory of Christ to the ends of the earth must consider not only how to declare the gospel verbally but also how to demonstrate the gospel visibly in a world where so many are urgently hungry” (note: 26,000 children die each day due to starvation or a preventable disease).
- “Why not begin operating under the idea that God has given us excess, not so we could have more, but so we could give more?”
- “To everyone wanting a safe, untroubled, comfortable life free from danger, stay away from Jesus…as long as Christianity looks like the American dream, we will have few problems in this world.”
- “Things look radically different on a luxury liner than they do on a troop carrier. The faces of soldiers preparing for battle and those of patrons enjoying their bonbons are radically different.”
- “Ultimate satisfaction is found not in making much of ourselves but in making much of God.”
As you can hopefully tell, I think Radical is an excellent book written by one of God’s best. It challenges the believer to live in a Biblical lifestyle that brings much honor to Jesus. I do feel a couple of words of caution are warranted:
1. An immature Christian could become very legalistic with some of the things in the book. I define legalism as making my preferences your burden. One could take some of the points about the church and say that ‘it is too expensive to put in carpet, A/C…that money could have fed the poor in Africa, etc…do you really love your AC more than the orphan’s life you materialistic American?’ For sure, materialism IS a bigger problem for us than too much generosity, but Biblical balance is necessary. Briefly, I see several principles in the Bible about money that need to be held in respectful tension:
a. God gives excess to some so that they can share with those who have less. (2 Corinthians 8:13-15)
b. Jesus’ radical generosity toward us should be to us a model and motivation for radical generosity with others.
c. God delights in our enjoyment of His material gifts & gives us richly all things to enjoy (1 Timothy 6:17-19). (Note:if you take this principle apart from the others, you can justify an indulgent lifestyle that is not honoring to God)
d. We are not to trust in riches but in God (Matthew 6:25-33) (watch Steve Farrar’s message on this passage)
e. Wealth management is wise and includes how to save money, make money, spend money, and give money. (Proverbs 6:6-8; 14:24; 21:5; 3:9-10; 13:22; 10:22, etc.)
2. It would also be easy for someone to romanticize a particular foreign Christian culture over the “indulgent Christian American” culture. Christian cultures have both darkness and light, wickedness and goodness. The key is desperation and dependence. It is true that we in the states often have more “stuff” that we mistakenly trust in. David hits it well on page 60 when he states, “Instead of imagining all the things we can accomplish, we ask God to do what only He can accomplish. Yes, we work, we plan, we organize, and we create, but we do it all while we fast, while we pray, and while we constantly confess our need for the provision of God. Instead of dependence on ourselves, we express radical desperation for the power of His Spirit, and we trust that Jesus stands ready to give us everything we ask for so that He might make much of our Father in the world.”
“The Mystery Is Gone And Artists Just Start Looking Like Normal People That Aren’t So Special,” Says Kevin Breuner of CD Baby. Interview Part Two.
« Mitchell Wolk Leaves ADA, WMG Names New Leader | Main | Tom Whalley Exits Warner Bros. Records. As WMG Names New Executive Team »
2010.09.14
“The Mystery Is Gone And Artists Just Start Looking Like Normal People That Aren’t So Special,” Says Kevin Breuner of CD Baby. Interview Part Two.
In the second segment of my interview with Kevin Breuner, who is the Marketing Project Manager at CD Baby and host of the DIY Musician Podcast, we talk about the singular model of success that the record industry operated under, why musicians need to think of themselves as entrepreneurs, and The Great Reset occurring in the record and music industries.
Kyle Bylin: In the past, the record and music industries were disproportionately biased towards a singular mode of thinking about how success was achieved and measured. Somewhere, at the back of some bar, an A&R agent sat and discovered your band, signed you to his representative label, and paid for the production of your album. Then, you toured on that album, got on radio, and in retail—if you moved millions of albums, then and only then, you were deemed a success. And, if you weren’t able to accomplish that feat, the album was considered a failure.
In what ways have new technologies brought us into a new economy for music, where instead of one model that everyone tried to apply, to an economy where many different models exist?
Kevin Breuner: Right now, everything is wide open. Artists are able to try anything they want to when it comes to the way they connect with their fans and get their music out. From the artist perspective, I think there may be some issues with motivation. Like, “What’s the point?” Being an artist is not an easy road, and in the past, there was always the lofty dreams of “making it” that kept them going. For the artists that did make it through the gate keepers, and were lucky enough to be signed, they received validation.
“Even if their records didn’t sell, this
validation could be worth more than money.”It says to family, friends, supporters, and fans, “We are a legitimate artists! The time and money we put into our music is not a waste!” Now, without that stamp of approval, I think it’s harder for artists to jump from being seen as a local band to a band who needs to be spending their time crafting music.
On the fan community side, I think the age of the rock stars is over. You don’t see people going as crazy for individual artists like they once did. I think the downside of all the artist accessibility on the internet, is that much of the mystery is gone and artists just start looking like normal people that aren’t as special or mysterious.
Bylin: This new economy for music won’t be just about the music itself, but about music as art.
From the perspective of urban studies theorist Richard Florida, “Music was one of the first industries to experience the brutal effects of the digital transition, and it’s clear that the ability to make money has shifted—even for the most established acts—from selling albums, CDs, and even digital downloads to live performance and, designing experiences.”
It’s been said that, “music as art gains value when put into context.”
How do new technologies help artists create different and innovative “contexts” in which their music can gain value, tangible and intangible?
Breuner: Bands have always made most of their money and fan connections by playing live, so when I see statements about the live performance being the key to the future, I usually assume the person saying it is not a musician. Plus, the concert industry has serious issue as well that the “live performance is the key” theory overlooks.
“There is a glut of live shows with a growing number of artists vying for a limited number of concert bills.”
Not to mention the fact that just because you write a good song, doesn’t mean you’re automatically good at performing live in a way that makes strong connections with fans (and in turn making money). In my opinion, the usage of video in conjunction with the artist’s career is the next big frontier.
Obviously many artists are already doing it, but bands that can find their niche with video, will find it much easier to broaden their fan base. This could be live streaming shows, documentary type YouTube videos, funny content, you name it. The consumption of video online is skyrocketing and it’s not going to slow down any time soon. I always tell my band mates in Hello Morning that our largest audience will never be at our shows. They are on the web. We get video clips from just about everything we do. Even if the show was not attended well, we’ll get views online that far exceed the venues capacity.
Bylin: Industry pundit and analyst Andrew Dubber has famously said that, “If you want to make the music that moves you, that will hopefully create meaning for people, and that will perhaps earn you a sustainable living, then you have chosen risk, and you will have to be as smart with the entrepreneurship as you are with the music if you want to survive and thrive.”
This means that you can’t make things that fans will not pay for, start insisting they should, and then complain that their morals to blame—if and when fans file-share your music.
By thinking of themselves as musical entrepreneurs, how does that change the way artists think about the music that they create, the context that they interject into it, and the overall direction of their career?
Breuner: I think it just forces artists to be more honest about their motivations with the art they are creating.
“If you want it to sell, you have to figure out
what will sell. There is fierce competition, so just
making a good album is not enough.”For an artist that has been on a label, this idea always enters the equation. A label wants to sell units, so they are going to pressure you to produce music they know will sell. I think for many indie artists, they find that reality a bit crushing.
Bylin: In The Great Reset, Florida argues that Great Resets are “broad and fundamental transformations of the economic and social order and involve much more than strictly economic and financial events.”They are the great transformative moments when new technologies and technological systems arise, when the economy is recast and society remade, and when the places where we work and live and work change to suit new needs.”
Do you think that the record and music industries are experiencing a Great Reset of their own?
Breuner: I’m not sure if it’s a reset or not. There are still some serious challenges for the music industry. It used to make money off a physical product which was easy to control, and the world is now digital where there is very little control.
“At some level, if you want to make money,
you have to be able to control your product.”The benefit of the old model is that it took people who were good with music and paired them up with people who were good at marketing and business. Now that more is falling on the shoulders of the artists themselves, it’s still too early to tell if that will translate into long term profitable business models. I can totally see a return to a hybrid of the old model where artists continue to pair up with people good at business, only this time around the artists will be more business savvy and be the ones in control of their career and music.
Kyle Bylin in Interviews | Permalink
Reblog (0) | | Digg This | Tweet This!’); |
Comments
Multivitamins Don’t Raise Colon Cancer Survival, Prevent Recurrence
–>
Multivitamins Don’t Raise Colon Cancer Survival, Prevent Recurrence
Taking a daily multivitamin didn’t improve survival or reduce the risk that colon cancer would come back for stage III patients enrolled in a clinical trial of chemotherapy after surgery.
Although about half of patients in the trial took a multivitamin supplement during their treatment, the vitamin didn’t improve their outcomes, nor did it reduce side effects. At the same time, multivitamin use didn’t have a detrimental effect.
Researchers asked about 1,000 patients at the end of their chemotherapy and then about 6 months later about whether they took multivitamins during their chemo or afterwards. Patients in the trial had randomly received one of two different chemos, and the trial showed no difference between the two treatments.
After about 7 years of follow-up there was no difference between patients who took multivitamins during chemotherapy and those who didn’t for cancer-free survival, recurrence, or overall survival. There was also no difference for patients who said that they took multivitamins in the months after they finished chemo.
However, multivitamins taken during chemotherapy did appear to benefit patients who were 60 years old or younger. who had about a 30 percent reduction in the risk of dying from cancer or having their colon cancer return. This difference didn’t seem to be related to family history or microsatellite instability. But taking multivitamins after chemotherapy was completed, didn’t improve outcomes for these younger patients.
Obese patients did derive benefit from multivitamin use, but those who were merely overweight actually did worse in terms of disease-free survival when they took them. In normal weight people, vitamins didn’t make a difference.
Commenting on the study, Charles Fuchs, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the paper’s senior author, said.
This study adds to a growing body of research that questions the purported benefit of multivitamin use, and it underscores the need to investigate the use of individual vitamins, such as vitamin D, which may, in fact, provide real benefit.
Dr. Fuchs noted that most multivitamins contain a small dose of vitamin D.
Use of multivitamins during chemotherapy didn’t appear to affect side effects, with no significant differences between those who took them and those who didn’t for nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or lowered white cell counts. There was less severe fatigue in multivitamin users, with 10.8 percent of the nonusers experiencing grade 3 or 4 fatigue compared to 7.4 percent of those who took vitamins.
Lead author Kimmie Ng and her colleagues concluded,
Multivitamin use during and after adjuvant chemotherapy was not significantly associated with
improved outcomes in patients with stage III colon cancer.SOURCE: Ng et al., Journal of Clinical Oncology, Early Release, August 30, 2010.
Posted by Kate Murphy on September 13th, 2010
Tags: nutritional supplements, recurrence risk, survival benefit
Stars, Networks Stand Up To Cancer Tonight
–>
Stars, Networks Stand Up To Cancer Tonight
Tonight, September 10 at 8PM Eastern/7PM Central, ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX will join in a simultaneous broadcast to Stand Up to Cancer. HBO, Discovery Health, E!, MLB Network and The Style Network will also carry the show this year.
Stars from television, movies, music and sports will join cancer survivors in an effort to raise money for cancer research.
Diane Sawyer says,
The broadcast is a way of saying, ‘Together, we can do this’ And yes, we’re losing one person every minute, but 11 million survivors are out there; living proof that this can be done. It will also be an opportunity for everybody to figure out concrete ways that they can do the things that they connect to the most strongly.
100 percent of donations raised by SU2C will used for cutting-edge cancer research, including directly funding innovative, high-risk, proposals that often are not supported by conventional funding sources, but have the potential to improve the lives of cancer patients.
Nearly $75 million in funds raised during the 2008 broadcast are supporting five Dream Teams that take a collaborative approach to solving critical cancer problems. Teams include more than 300 researchers from 20 institutions as well as patient advocates.
In addition, almost $10 million is dedicated to the work of young cancer scientists doing innovative research. The SU2C Innovative Research Program was established in honor of the late Judah Folkman.
The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) is the scientific partner for SU2C, reviewing proposals and overseeing grants through its Scientific Advisory Committee.
Colorectal Cancer Coalition Chair Nancy Roach chairs the Stand Up to Cancer Advocacy Advisory Council. The Council brings the patient and family perspective to cancer issues important to the project.
The AACR-SU2C Clinical Trials Navigator will have extended hours during the broadcast and the following weekend. You can reach them at 1-877-769-4829.
Posted by Kate Murphy on September 10th, 2010
Tags: cancer research, Stand Up to Cancer
Evidence for the Resurrection
Evidence for the Resurrection
by Josh McDowell (via @HixonFrank)
For centuries many of the world’s distinguished philosophers have assaulted Christianity as being irrational, superstitious and absurd. Many have chosen simply to ignore the central issue of the resurrection. Others have tried to explain it away through various theories. But the historical evidence just can’t be discounted.
A student at the University of Uruguay said to me. “Professor McDowell, why can’t you refute Christianity?”
“For a very simple reason,” I answered. “I am not able to explain away an event in history–the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
How can we explain the empty tomb? Can it possibly be accounted for by any natural cause?
A QUESTION OF HISTORY
After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings–or it is the most remarkable fact of history.
Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone. In subsequent weeks, His disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He appeared to them various times before ascending into heaven.
From that foundation, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and has continued to exert great influence down through the centuries.
LIVING WITNESSES
The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.
The writers of the four Gospels either had themselves been witnesses or else were relating the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events. In advocating their case for the gospel, a word that means “good news,” the apostles appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning the facts of the resurrection.
F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records as primary sources: “Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective.”
IS THE NEW TESTAMENT RELIABLE?
Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.
By the end of the 1 9th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.
Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world’s foremost biblical archaeologist, said: “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.”
Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of “authentic evidence” concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: “Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. “
I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . . E. M. BlaiklockProfessor of Classics, Auckland University
BACKGROUND
The New Testament witnesses were fully aware of the background against which the resurrection took place. The body of Jesus, in accordance with Jewish burial custom, was wrapped in a linen cloth. About 100 pounds of aromatic spices, mixed together to form a gummy substance, were applied to the wrappings of cloth about the body. After the body was placed in a solid rock tomb, an extremely large stone was rolled against the entrance of the tomb. Large stones weighing approximately two tons were normally rolled (by means of levers) against a tomb entrance.
A Roman guard of strictly disciplined fighting men was stationed to guard the tomb. This guard affixed on the tomb the Roman seal, which was meant to “prevent any attempt at vandalizing the sepulcher. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb’s entrance would have broken the seal and thus incurred the wrath of Roman law.
But three days later the tomb was empty. The followers of Jesus said He had risen from the dead. They reported that He appeared to them during a period of 40 days, showing Himself to them by many “infallible proofs.” Paul the apostle recounted that Jesus appeared to more than 500 of His followers at one time, the majority of whom were still alive and who could confirm what Paul wrote. So many security precautions were taken with the trial, crucifixion, burial, entombment, sealing, and guarding of Christ’s tomb that it becomes very difficult for critics to defend their position that Christ did not rise from the dead. Consider these facts:
• FACT #1: BROKEN ROMAN SEAL
As we have said, the first obvious fact was the breaking of the seal that stood for the power and authority of the Roman Empire. The consequences of breaking the seal were extremely severe. The FBI and CIA of the Roman Empire were called into action to find the man or men who were responsible. If they were apprehended, it meant automatic execution by crucifixion upside down. People feared the breaking of the seal. Jesus’ disciples displayed signs of cowardice when they hid themselves. Peter, one of these disciples, went out and denied Christ three times.
FACT #2: EMPTY TOMB
As we have already discussed, another obvious fact after the resurrection was the empty tomb. The disciples of Christ did not go off to Athens or Rome to preach that Christ was raised from the dead. Rather, they went right back to the city of Jerusalem, where, if what they were teaching was false, the falsity would be evident. The empty tomb was “too notorious to be denied.” Paul Althaus states that the resurrection “could have not been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned.”
Both Jewish and Roman sources and traditions admit an empty tomb. Those resources range from Josephus to a compilation of fifth-century Jewish writings called the “Toledoth Jeshu.” Dr. Paul Maier calls this “positive evidence from a hostile source, which is the strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, this means that if a source admits a fact decidedly not in its favor, then that fact is genuine.”
Gamaliel, who was a member of the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin, put forth the suggestion that the rise of the Christian movement was God’s doing; he could not have done that if the tomb were still occupied, or if the Sanhedrin knew the whereabouts of Christ’s body.
Paul Maier observes that ” . . . if all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea, in which Jesus was buried, was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement.”
FACT #3: LARGE STONE MOVED
On that Sunday morning the first thing that impressed the people who approached the tomb was the unusual position of the one and a half to two ton stone that had been lodged in front of the doorway. All the Gospel writers mention it.
There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias. – Clark Pinnock ,McMaster University
Those who observed the stone after the resurrection describe its position as having been rolled up a slope away not just from the entrance of the tomb, but from the entire massive sepulcher. It was in such a position that it looked as if it had been picked up and carried away. Now, I ask you, if the disciples had wanted to come in, tiptoe around the sleeping guards, and then roll the stone over and steal Jesus’ body, how could they have done that without the guards’ awareness?
FACT #4: ROMAN GUARD GOES AWOL
The Roman guards fled. They left their place of responsibility. How can their attrition he explained, when Roman military discipline was so exceptional? Justin, in Digest #49, mentions all the offenses that required the death penalty. The fear of their superiors’ wrath and the possibility of death meant that they paid close attention to the minutest details of their jobs. One way a guard was put to death was by being stripped of his clothes and then burned alive in a fire started with his garments. If it was not apparent which soldier had failed in his duty, then lots were drawn to see which one wand be punished with death for the guard unit’s failure. Certainly the entire unit would not have fallen asleep with that kind of threat over their heads. Dr. George Currie, a student of Roman military discipline, wrote that fear of punishment “produced flawless attention to duty, especially in the night watches.”
FACT #5: GRAVECLOTHES TELL A TALE
In a literal sense, against all statements to the contrary, the tomb was not totally empty–because of an amazing phenomenon. John, a disciple of Jesus, looked over to the place where the body of Jesus had lain, and there were the grave clothes, in the form of the body, slightly caved in and empty–like the empty chrysalis of a caterpillar’s cocoon. That’s enough to make a believer out of anybody. John never did get over it. The first thing that stuck in the minds of the disciples was not the empty tomb, but rather the empty grave clothes–undisturbed in form and position.
FACT #6: JESUS’ APPEARANCES CONFIRMED
Christ appeared alive on several occasions after the cataclysmic events of that first Easter . When studying an event in history, it is important to know whether enough people who were participants or eyewitnesses to the event were alive when the facts about the event were published. To know this is obviously helpful in ascertaining the accuracy of the published report. If the number of eyewitnesses is substantial, the event can he regarded as fairly well established. For instance, if we all witness a murder, and a later police report turns out to he a fabrication of lies, we as eyewitnesses can refute it.
OVER 500 WITNESSES
Several very important factors arc often overlooked when considering Christ’s post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ’s appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience’s knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: “What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, ‘If you do not believe me, you can ask them.’ Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago.” Let’s take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history.
HOSTILE WITNESSES
Another factor crucial to interpreting Christ’s appearances is that He also appeared to those who were hostile or unconvinced.
Over and over again, I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using that argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the multiple eyewitness accounts. But that line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ’s followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection.
If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.



