Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!geneva.rutgers.edu!christian
From: ata@hfsi.hfsi.com ( John Ata)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Message-ID: <Apr.23.02.56.43.1993.3174@geneva.rutgers.edu>
Date: 23 Apr 93 06:56:44 GMT
Sender: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu
Reply-To: <news@opl.com>
Organization: HFSI
Lines: 40
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

In article <Apr.21.03.26.15.1993.1349@geneva.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:

>The basic problem with your argument is your total and complete reliance on
>the biblical text.  Luke's account is highly suspect (I would refer you to
>the hermeneia commentary on Acts).  Moreover Luke's account is written at
>least 90 years after the fact.  In the meantime everyone he mentions has died
>and attempts to find actual written sources behind the text have come up
>with only the we section of the later portion of acts as firmly established.
>Moreover, Pauls account of some of the events in Acts (as recorded in 
>Galatians) fail to establish the acts accounts. 

Even if there was no independent proof that Luke's account was
valid, I find it strange that you would take the negation of it as
truth without any direct historical evidence (at least that you've
mentioned) to back it up.  The assertion was made, unequivocally
that no Christian ever sufferred for their faith by believing in
the Resurrection.  Luke's account suggests otherwise, and in the
absence of direct eyewitnesses who can claim that Luke is mistaken,
then I suggest that this unequivocal assertion is suspect.

>randy


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729

[I think the original claim may have been somewhat more limited than
this.  It was an answer to the claim that the witnesses couldn't
be lying because they were willign to suffer for their beliefs.
Thus it's not necessary to show that no Christian ever suffered
for believing in the Resurrection.  Rather the issue is whether
those who witnessed it did.

I do agree that the posting you're responding to shows that there
can be liberal as well as conservative dogmatism.

--clh]
