> > As I said, there are in
> > 20th century man's possession, original documentation of
> > these events. However, history has no documentation of
> > anyone in the first century denying these events. Yes, they
> > deny Jesus was the Son of God, but they fail to deny He was
> > resurrected.
>
> And therefore, since we have no record of such denials, we should logically
> conclude that they never existed?
I think a better question is, In the absence of such historical evidence
what reason do we have to believe that they did exist? I think I detect
some inconsistency here. On one hand, Russell, you demand that anyone
who asserts that something exists, present evidence in support of his
assertion. Here, however, you acknowledge the lack of evidence of first
century denials of the resurrection and seem to be suggesting that we
just believe that such existed anyway. Which way is it? This is not
good historiography by any means.
Keith