Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!rochester!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Poll concerning Jesus's resurrection Message-ID: Date: 20 Sep 90 08:14:20 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA Lines: 25 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [This is a response to my comment that there's a problem with citing Paul's comments on the Resurrection as support for the Empty Tomb, because the Resurrection does not necessarily imply an empty tomb. --clh] If you don't hold to the inspiration of Scripture, its authority, inerrancy, and infallibility; you can come up with as many doubts as you like with never an answer. For example, by denying the virgin birth, you also deny the sufficiency of Christ as Savior. Because sin entered the world through Adam and death through sin, death spread to all men... (Rom.5:12) Sin is carried through the male, not the female. This is why Christ had to be born of a virgin. To be our sacrafice, He had to be sinless. Comparing the resurrection to the Eucharist is fallacious. Over 500 people witnessed the risen Christ. If one had his stomach contents analyzed, there would be nothing more found than wine and starch. The Lord's supper is not meant to be a cannibalistic ritual, by a remembrance of his death (and ressurection). --Gary [I say again: I am not arguing that there's no Biblical evidence for the empty tomb. I am arguing that Paul's comments on the Resurrection are not evidence for the empty tomb, because Paul does not say anything about it, and his comments would be consistent with accounts of the Resurrection that did not involve the empty tomb. --clh]