To me, the core issue was not so much what the debate points were ( although they were not negligible), it was how they were presented, one side of which was not very responsive or sticking to the point.
Regarding the whole exchange, I enjoyed the chance to apply proper hermeneutics to the matter, and see what others did with it. If someone becomes angry, it is without further need to discuss that the person who is upset has made oneself that way. To blame it on someone else for one's emotional state only says that such a person has no control over their own spirit, but wants to blame others for the ill feelings.
I'm not angry or miffed. Are You? I would guess probably not. If anyone would prefer to spend more time involved in basic evangelization, I would say to do that.
That’s what I am into bro. Jesus said to preach the gospel, not to argue about what is, or is not coursing through his veins.
My personal opinion, is that when Jesus rose from the dead, he had no blood in his physical, risen body. People could physically see him. He was not a spirit. He told his disciples that.
Is it important? Yes. Is it necessary that we totally understand every microscopic detail about the death and resurrection of Christ? No, it’s not.
I got saved in 1970, just before I went to Vietnam. Here in 2018, it is the first time I have seen anyone make an issue of it, but it’s about number 98 on my priority list. I would rather preach the gospel. 👍