kankune,
Why can’t you admit you were/are wrong about rumi’s OP? Are you so much of a “Trumpkin-ite” that you can never admit your errors? SEVERAL respected posters of the OPP, many of whom also are of the “conservative” persuasion, have said you’re WRONG with your attack of rumi.

What, exactly, do you find objectionable about the OP? Perhaps, you confused some of his words and think he wrote a word(s) that you may have mis-read. Perhaps, you read and re-read the text so fast that your mind saw one word when he actually wrote a different word.

Digging-in your heals and doubling down on your “un-forced error,” is typical Trumpet. I thought you had it in you to admit your mistakes. I guess I was wrong.

Again, exactly what do you find objectionable about rumi’s OP?

For the world, the absurdity of a person rising from the dead mocks Christian claims of Christ's divinity: it could not happen. Cannot happen! It has never happened! Yet to be a Christian, his resurrection is demanded as central to belief.

We have no proof, of course, and the Biblical historical accounts are seriously conflicted over what really happened at his grave. Four different accounts. I find that fact of "four different accounts" encouraging. Why include them if you were trying to make a case for Christ? Why in a Jewish community would the testimony of women as to his resurrection be included in the official Gospels? Shocking! And wrong! No way! Yet there it is. Why?

The truth of the resurrection of Jesus is in the disparate views freely expressed in the NT. Why allow it, if your purpose is to make a case for this new "Jewish cult"? "Get your story straight." But they did not. They allowed the testimonies as is, no matter possible conflictions. Who would be so openly honest unless utterly confident in the fact of his resurrection? The different views of what happened are common in eyewitness testimony. Allowing it instead of trying to make a coordinated and consistent statement of events lends to its veracity.