From: John Beckett 

"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news::
> No, I'm saying they didn't need *faith* that Christ was resurrected.  They
> saw it with their own eyes or they saw it didn't happen with their own eyes.
> Faith wasn't required for them on this one particular point.

I can't stand it any longer -- I'm going to have to break my vow of silence.

I have seen a girl reving a motorbike DISAPPEAR before my eyes in a small
theatre, not more than 50 feet away (girl plus bike vanished). Seeing is
believing, and now that I have seen it I realise that personal testimony
ain't necessarily so.

Even if the apostles really did have solid evidence for what they saw, WE
do not. Consider the evidence - "X observed proof that Christ was dead
on Monday and alive on Tuesday". We have to wonder HOW it is known
that Monday's observation was really accurate. We need to check just who
recorded all the testimony, and whether there might have been people with
an agenda that was favoured by exaggeration or other tampering with the
written record.

If Christ was resurrected, we can assume the apostles were all good,
sensible people, and their testimony is evidence. But you need to KNOW that
Christ was resurrected before you have any reason to pay particular
attention to statements from the apostles.

Finally, why are you so excited about finding a "proof"? Is there
something unsatisfying in your faith that requires you to elevate your
beliefs to a science?

John

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5