Jesus of Nazareth stated that after the resurrection, people would be like angels in heaven, indicating a transformed state of existence free from earthly limitations and relationships. In the Gospel of Matthew (22:30), he explained that in the resurrection, people would neither marry nor be given in marriage, emphasizing a different kind of life beyond earthly ties. This suggests a spiritual existence characterized by divine connection rather than human familial structures.
It is hard to understand why some people would believe that there is no imortance in Jesus' resurrection. Whether or not the resurrection really happened, it is important as the very basis for Christian belief.
Christianity is based on the death and resurrection of Jesus. Without His death and resurrection there would be no Christianity.
Christians say that without belief in the resurrection of Jesus, they would not believe in Jesus as the Son of God.
That would be Jesus of Nazareth.
No, it would not be more believable. The Resurrection of Jesus (and Christianity for that matter) is a matter of faith. To the believers, the act of Resurrection is fine just the way it is. To the non-believer, it wouldn't matter what and/or how Jesus rose from the dead, they would still not believe it.
Jesus would have been living in Nazareth, in Galilee, when He was 15. In fact, He would have been there the vast majority of His life on Earth.
A:As a Christian you would agree with the historicity of Jesus' resurrection i) because it is a central teaching of Christianity, and ii) because not to do so would begin to call into doubt the reliabilty of the gospel records. As a non-Christian you would not need to agree with the historicity of Jesus' resurrection for either of these reasons.
Mr. Lucas
He grew up in Nazareth, so he would have been there.He grew up in Nazareth, so he would have been there.He grew up in Nazareth, so he would have been there.He grew up in Nazareth, so he would have been there.He grew up in Nazareth, so he would have been there.He grew up in Nazareth, so he would have been there.He grew up in Nazareth, so he would have been there.He grew up in Nazareth, so he would have been there.He grew up in Nazareth, so he would have been there.He grew up in Nazareth, so he would have been there.He grew up in Nazareth, so he would have been there.
To fulfill the scriptures, Jesus would arise on the third day.
The expected answer is 'Nazarenes', but it is far from certain that a person who was called a Nazarene would have come from Nazareth. Acts 24:5 has Tertullus refer to Paul as a pestilent fellow and a leader of the sect of Nazoreans ( Ναζωραίων). From this we can assume that certainly by the time Acts was written, there was a sect known as the Nazoreans and that members of this sect regarded themselves as Christians. The spelling is different, as often occurs in the Bible, but as Markmentions Nazarenes but not a sect of Nazoreans, it is possible that there was no real difference between the two. There are even suggestions that the sect of Nazarenes existed before the time of Jesus.Matthew's Gospel is at pains to say that Jesus would be called a Nazarene because he came from Nazareth, but this is likely in response to Mark's Gospel, where Jesus is never referred to, in the original Greek language, as 'Jesus of Nazareth' but repeatedly as 'Jesus the Nazarene' (Ναζαρηνοῦ).
There were no surnames at the time. They did not come into being for over a thousand years after Jesus died. He would have been known as Jesus, son of Joseph, or Jesus of Nazareth.