>if not, then you are the one that apparently knows nothing
>lol
>
>
>
>my students would even call you batshit for even bringing
>archeology up in that context
>
>
>whats next, the bible can explain Jonah in whale using
>oceanography? lol
>
>
>I wish you were a real man in real life, not a cartoon coon.
>The net is fun, but seeing stupid in realtime would fuckin
>rock



Well, when it comes to the resurrection Jesus Christ, there is one overwhelming matter that overshadows every other consideration. And that is the implication of what resurrection would means to the faith.

Jesus quoted the Old Testament as truth of God. He also promised that his Spirit would guide his apostles into all truth, and faith. The resurrection is one of the most important prophecies by which the Old Testament identifies the divine Messiah; a prophecy that Jesus repeatedly applied to himself. Thus, Jesus' resurrection would validate the Old Testament, the New Testament.

For many people believing in a Risen Christ is hard to believe, because they have no spiritual relationship with the God or His Son Jesus.

But, for those who were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, those who were part of the first and second generation Christian movement, they were able to believe as they proclaimed Jesus as the risen Christ because of their relationship. Upon their proclamation, many were killed by the Roman Emperor Nero. And this claim is a historical fact. That was the degree of their certainty in the resurrection of Jesus Christ: believing he rose from the dead when the penalty for believing was horrible death.

"We know that all but one of Christ's apostles were killed for their faith. Some of these men had also authored books in the New Testament. The major New Testament author, Paul, similarly chose to accept his own beheading rather than agree to stop preaching of Christ's bodily resurrection.

The preference of these men to be tortured or killed is evidence of the literal truth of the resurrection account. For if their preaching was intended to only symbolically continue Christ's teachings, there is no reason for anyone to have chosen martyrdom. Paul and the apostles could have simply conceded the point that Christ's physical body was dead. That would have satisfied both Jewish and Roman authorities, and in no way hindered the allegorical interpretation of the resurrection if that is indeed what they had been trying to promote.

If they had intended that Christ was alive only to the extent to which his teachings were being lived out, then their own willful deaths would actually have been antithetical to that so-called continuation. The apostles' and Gospel authors' belief in the literal resurrection of Jesus is the most rational explanation for them to have been unanimous in accepting the harsh consequences that they received.

Most of them were repeatedly warned and given ample opportunity to cease from preaching Christ's return. It appears that no apostle was executed without having received many such chances to clarify his teachings and to recant from any literal misinterpretations of what each may have been saying. Yet not one recanted nor restated his beliefs to save himself from exile, arrest, beatings, torture, or death.

As has often been stated, "Who would knowingly die for a lie?" It might be conjectured that some of Jim Jones followers knowingly died for the lie of Jone's messiahship. But their deaths came about quickly by poison. Almost all of them died at the same place, at the same time, and by their own hand. This is nothing like the individual and isolated martyrdoms of each of the apostles at the torturous hands of authorities who were trying to force them to recant." ~ http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Divin/D-0504.htm




.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4