How Important Was The Empty Tomb?

[SEG]

Egor wrote

The resurrection means everything, but my proof of the resurrection is that I feel the presence of Christ in my mind.

You may have missed this, Egor:
Hold on! Earlier you said that the empty tomb doesn't matter because:

"In my opinion, it means nothing at all. I didn't live then."

The resurrection shouldn't mean anything to you either, as you weren't alive then!

[hertz vanrental]

SEG wrote

Especially when that stretch of land would only take a week or so to cross. Wot tha fuck were they doing bumbling in the desert for 40 years? Lighting up all those sacrificial fires would get hard after a while too.

Then there's The Flood.

If it really happened, there would be geological evidence of it in the same geological strata all over the world. There isn't.

The Ark didn't have an aquarium. The super fuck wit, Ken Ham, states that: Noah didn't need to put fish in the ark because fish could swim. True enough. Some types of fish are euryhaline in that they can survive in both salt and fresh water environments. However, most species of fish can't and can only survive in one type of environment. The salination level in the sea would have fallen because of the enormous amount of fresh water, in the form of rain, that fell. Salt water fish would therefore have struggled and even died as a result. Fresh water fish would have also struggled and died as a result of the increased salination caused by the mixing of fresh and salt water.

Basically, the flood would have destroyed the vast majority of fish.

There are numerous species of fish alive today - both fresh and salt water.

The Flood?

Like the rest of the babble.

Bollocks.

[Davin]

Why is this shit thread in this part of the forum? Should be in the "Does God Exist?" one methinks.

[hertz vanrental]

Davin wrote

Why is this shit thread in this part of the forum? Should be in the "Does God Exist?" one methinks.

It's a good question - and well phrase as Bamber would say.

The OP was about the empty tomb and its importance.
Strictly speaking, it relates to zombie boy - not to his dad.

The question assumes that the zombie was crucified, which presumes that he existed. If he didn't, the nativity was a lie and what else in the babble is a lie?

I think that's how we got here.

However, am happy if it moves, am happy if it stays.

Why is the thread shit, pray tell?