re did he really rise in article apr 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 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 va uucp uunet hfsi ata westpark drive ms voice mclean va fax 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
