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).  ...  In article <Apr.23.02.56.43.1993.3174@geneva.rutgers.edu>, ata@hfsi.hfsi.com ( John Ata) writes:  > 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, The problem here is that you have taken one peice of my response, without bothering to connect it with the other parts.  I have repeatedly noted that one needs to take the problematic historcity of acts and then examine the work of John Dominic Crossan and Burton Mack.  Once you have taken the time to examine recent developments in biblical scholarship, I think you will  grasp more clearly what I am saying.    > [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]  Certainly this is an issue as I think the situation in Waco shows most  clearly.  If all that is required is that people are willing to die for a belief for it to be true, then surely David Koresh is the son of God.  No, the spurrious arguement that the resurrection had to be true for people to be willing to die must be put to rest.  The other problem is that it is so  monologocentric.  Even if the resurrection was a big deal (which it doesn't seem to have been for either Q, Thomas, or even John to a certain degree) there are a lot of other things which the Early Christians could have been doing together that would have been worth dying for.  It is my belief that even the idea of a mixed race community, which brought down regional/national boundaries in the name of koinonia could have been enough for people to be willing to die.  Radical communties do that (e.g. Jonestown, Waco, Warsaw, etc) But my original point was that roman persecution (which is the only persecution we have documented proof of) was not about whether a carpenter came back from the dead.  Such a claim was not unique nor particularly abhorent to the roman or greek mind.  My point is that avoidance of military and civic duty (i.e. emperor worship) would have been much more problematic -- which has nothing to do with the resurrection at all.  When nero used christians as human  torches to light up his dinner party it wasn't because the believe in a  risen savior, it was because they were supposedly involved in incest and cannablism.  The argument that christians were martyred for the resurrection just cannot stand up to critical examination.