

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.



-- 
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.