Why the Resurrection narratives cannot be eyewitness testimony with a challenge

[AchillesHeel]

Observation and thesis: The resurrection narratives are not reliable historical reports based on eyewitness testimony because they deviate too much from one another and grow in the telling in chronological order. This is not expected from reliable eyewitness testimony but is more expected from a legend developing over time. In order to show the resurrection narratives evolve like a legend developing, I'm going to compare the ways Jesus is said to have been "seen" or experienced after the Resurrection in each account according to the order in which most scholars place the compositions. Remember, these accounts are claimed to be from eyewitnesses who all experienced the same events so we would at least expect some sort of consistency.

Beginning with Paul (50s CE), who is our earliest and only verified firsthand account in the entire New Testament from someone who claims to have "seen" Jesus, he is also the only verified firsthand account we have from someone who claims to have personally met Peter and James - Gal. 1:18-19. Paul does not give any evidence of anything other than "visions" or "revelations" of Jesus. The Greek words ophthe (1 Cor 15:5-8), heoraka (1 Cor 9:1) and apokalupto (Gal. 1:16) do not necessarily imply the physical appearance of a person and so cannot be used as evidence for veridical experiences where an actual resurrected body was seen in physical reality. In Paul's account, it is unclear whether the "appearances" were believed to have happened before or after Jesus was believed to be in heaven, ultimately making the nature of these experiences ambiguous. Peter and James certainly would have told Paul about the empty tomb or the time they touched Jesus and watched him float to heaven. These "proofs" (Acts 1:3) would have certainly been helpful in convincing the doubting Corinthians in 1 Cor 15:12-20 and also help clarify the type of body the resurrected would have (v. 35). So these details are very conspicuous in their absence here.

Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.

Mark (70 CE) adds the discovery of the empty tomb but does not narrate any appearances so no help here really. He just claims Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee. This is very unexpected if the account really came from Peter's testimony. Why leave out the most important part especially, if Papias was correct, that "Mark made sure not to omit anything he heard"? Did Peter just forget to tell Mark this!? Anyways, there is no evidence a resurrection narrative existed at the time of composition of Mark's gospel circa 70 CE.

Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable. 

Matthew (80 CE) adds onto Mark's narrative, drops the remark that the "women told no one" from Mk
16:8 and instead, has Jesus suddenly appear to the women on their way to tell the disciples! It says they grabbed his feet which is not corroborated by any other account. Then, Jesus appeared to the disciples on a mountain in Galilee, another uncorroborated story, and says some even doubted it! (Mt. 28:17) So the earliest narrative doesn't even support the veracity of the event! Why would they doubt when they had already witnessed him the same night of the Resurrection according to Jn. 20:19? Well, under the development theory - John's story never took place! It's a later development, obviously, which perfectly explains both the lack of mention of any Jerusalem appearances in our earliest gospels plus the awkward "doubt" after already having seen Jesus alive!

Matthew's order of appearances: Two women (before reaching any disciples), then to the eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place after they leave the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.

Luke (85 CE or later) - All of Luke's appearances happen in or around Jerusalem which somehow went unnoticed by the authors of Mark and Matthew. Jesus appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then suddenly vanishes from their sight. They return to tell the other disciples and a reference is made to the appearance to Peter (which may just come from 1 Cor 15:5 since it's not narrated). Jesus suddenly appears to the Eleven disciples (which would include Thomas). This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports! Luke omits any appearance to the women and actually implies they *didn't* see Jesus. Acts 1:3 adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days and says Jesus provided "many convincing proofs he was alive" which shows the stories were apologetically motivated. There is no evidence that Luke intended to convey Jesus ever appeared to anyone in Galilee. Moreover, Luke leaves no room for any Galilean appearance because he has Jesus tell the disciples to "stay in the city" of Jerusalem the same night of the resurrection - Lk. 24:49. It looks as though the Galilean appearance tradition has been erased by Luke which would be a deliberate alteration of the earlier tradition (since Luke was dependent upon Mark's gospel).

Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem. Lk. 24:22-24 seems to exclude any appearance to the women. The women's report in Lk. 24:9-10 is missing any mention of seeing Jesus which contradicts Mt. 28:8-11 and Jn. 20:11-18.

John (90-110 CE) - the ascension has become tradition by the time John wrote (Jn. 3:13, 6:62, 20:17). Jesus appears to Mary outside the tomb who does not recognize him at first. Then Jesus, who can now teleport through locked doors, appears to the disciples minus Thomas. A week later we get the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus invites Thomas to poke his wounds. This story has the apologetic purpose that if you just "believe without seeing" you will be blessed. Lastly, there is another appearance by the Sea of Galilee in Jn. 21 in which Jesus appears to seven disciples. None of these stories are corroborated except for the initial appearance (which may draw upon Luke). It looks as though the final editor of John has tried to combine the disparate traditions of appearances.

John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene (after telling Peter and the other disciple), the disciples minus Thomas (but Lk. 24:33 implies Thomas was there), the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip.

Challenge: I submit this as a clear pattern of "development" that is better explained by the legendary growth hypothesis (LGH) as opposed to actual experienced events. Now the onus is on anyone who disagrees to explain why the story looks so "developed" while simultaneously maintaining its historical reliability. In order to achieve this, one must provide other reliable sources from people who experienced the same events but also exhibit the same amount of growth and disparity as the gospel resurrection narratives.

Until this challenge is met, the resurrection narratives should be regarded as legends because reliable eyewitness testimony does not have this degree of growth or inconsistency.

[AchillesHeel]

Firstly, your argument is invalid. Your consequent, Q, doesn’t follow from the antecedent, P, since “the witnesses” in P can also mean some of the witnesses. You’re simply assuming it means all the witnesses. If you want P to actually mean all the witnesses you need to make the premise P say "all the witnesses." But then you would be knocking down a strawman as the original claim did not explicitly say all the witnesses.

The original claim in post #14 was:

The gospels were written in the lifetimes of the witnesses.

There is no qualifier here. I literally just said in the first sentence you quoted that I interpreted the original claim as asserting that the writing of the gospels occurred while all key witnesses were alive. So you're just splitting hairs and being pedantic. Make the premise say "all the witnesses" and it's valid. Done.

Secondly, and more importantly, by doubling-down here with an attempt at a formal argument, you've nicely contradicted yourself. Here you've not merely suggested a conditional premise as you did earlier. Here you are on record assuming the reliability of Irenaeus! The only evidential justification you give for denying the consequent "Q: Key witnesses (Peter and Paul) were alive when the Gospels were written" in your argument is on the authority of Irenaeus, "According to Irenaeus..." You are tacitly assuming Irenaeus’ reliability here, you have to.

Absolutely wrong. The argument employs modus tollens which does not necessarily commit the person making the argument to believe that anything Irenaeus says is true. Instead, the argument uses Irenaeus's own claim to logically evaluate the consistency of a specific proposition about the timing of gospel authorship in relation to being written during the lifetime of the witnesses.

I made the argument as an internal critique which is a method of argumentation where a person temporarily adopts the viewpoint or assumptions of someone else to analyze it for internal consistency. Conducting an internal critique does not mean you accept the viewpoint in question as true or valid. It simply means you're analyzing it based on its own internal logic.

The bottom line is this - you regard Irenaeus to be reliable, right? Okay so that fulfills the "if" conditional. Time to give this up. You've lost.

But in the very next section you then argue (well, you cut and pasted someone else's argument from reddit) that Irenaeus is not reliable. Thus you've unwittingly contradicted yourself while trying to derive a contradiction. The irony here is priceless. You can’t hold that Irenaeus is both reliable and not reliable. So please make up your mind, is Irenaeus reliable or not?

Let's get that straightened out before moving forward.

This was in regards to Irenaeus' claim about the gospels being written by eyewitnesses which I do not think is reliable for the reasons given in that quote as well as the internal evidence. These claims are totally separate and need to be evaluated on their own merits of course. I never argued for or against the reliability of the idea Mark was written after Peter and Paul's deaths. Rather, I was assuming Mae von H endorsed Irenaeus' reliability.

This "all or nothing" approach to evaluating historical claims is problematic because it oversimplifies the complexities of historical evidence and the reliability of sources. Historical sources are rarely entirely accurate or entirely false. Instead, they often contain a mix of accurate information, biases, misunderstandings, and errors.

For example, Suetonius' "The Twelve Caesars" is an ancient Roman text that provides biographies of the first twelve emperors of Rome. Suetonius is often considered a valuable historical source, but his work also contains gossip, rumors, and moral judgments.

Reliable Claim: Suetonius accurately describes many of the public works and legal reforms initiated by the emperors, information that is corroborated by other sources and archaeological evidence.

Questionable Claim: Suetonius also reports on the personal vices and scandals of the emperors, some of which are based on rumors and hearsay, making them less reliable.

If one were to apply your "all or nothing" approach to Suetonius, they might dismiss the entire work as unreliable because some of the scandalous stories he reports are unsubstantiated. However, by rejecting Suetonius's work entirely, one would also lose access to valuable and corroborated information about Roman history.

[AchillesHeel]

In any case since Paul did not provide an account of the actual events following the death of that one, (but only testifies to his belief and personal experiences) I'm still struggling how his writings are significant in the development of the resurrection narrative?

Paul seems to equate the appearance to him (which was a vision - not a physical encounter with a revived corpse), with the "appearances" to the others. He says:

"Jesus appeared (ὤφθη) to them and appeared (ὤφθη) to me last of all." 

So the inference is these were all originally spiritual appearances that gradually evolve more realistic as the Resurrection story developed. This evolution is demonstrated in the original post.

Okay, just to clarify, are you suggesting then that the Christian community for some 20 years prior to the 50s, in fact had no tradition of a Christ appearing bodily and you base that on 1 Corinthians 15:8 ?

I base it on that fact plus the fact that the "physical appearances" all gradually evolve later on which questions their reliability. There is no evidence that these encounters were believed by anyone in the time period prior to the 70s AD.

[JehovahsWitness]

I base it on that fact plus the fact that the "physical appearances" all gradually evolve later on which questions their reliability. There is no evidence that these encounters were believed by anyone in the time period prior to the 70s AD.

Chronology does not necessarily imply lack of reliability, especially as we have established; there is an earlier oral tradition upon which such written accounts may well have been based. Further, I doubt the physical appearances of Jesus would be the hill Christians would choose to die on, since (I presume ) you are not claiming the Christians did not believe prior to the 70s that Jesus died and was raised back to life, only the method by which they were convinced of this fact.

In short - correct me if I am wrong - you are not claiming the Christians did not have the belief that Jesus physically died and then following his death returned to life in some form. You are only claiming that the numerous testimonies Paul claims existed even before he became a Christian , were all some kind of supernatural manifestation or experience which convinced the individuals concerned of a risen Christ . And these experiences would chronologically be the origin of the Christian tradition.

Would that be a fair summary of your position?

[AchillesHeel]

Chronology does not necessarily imply lack of reliability, especially as we have established; there is an earlier oral tradition upon which such written accounts may well have been based.

It's not just the chronological progression. It's the internal discrepancies and contradictions that do not support the idea that these were witnessed events. Do you have any evidence that the "oral tradition" contained such stories? That seems to be rather speculative if not pure conjecture.

Further, I doubt the physical appearances of Jesus would be the hill Christians would choose to die on, since (I presume ) you are not claiming the Christians did not believe prior to the 70s that Jesus died and was raised back to life, only the method by which they were convinced of this fact.

The "physical appearances" especially those in Luke and John seem apologetically motivated. Luke has Jesus say he's "not a spirit" and then proceed to give a physical demonstration that he's not. The inference here is that this story was created as a way of refuting those who held to a more "spiritual" view of the Risen Jesus. It seems quite obvious that's what is going on in the narrative. The same can be said for the Doubting Thomas story. If you just "believe without seeing" then you will be "blessed." So this was just invented in order to satisfy John's audience.

In short - correct me if I am wrong - you are not claiming the Christians did not have the belief that Jesus physically died and then following his death returned to life in some form. You are only claiming that the numerous testimonies Paul affirms to , were all some kind of supernatural manifestation or experience which convinced the individuals concerned of a risen Christ . And these experience happened prior to Paul writing his own experience.

Would that be a fair summary of your position?

More or less, yes but first and foremost the belief was based on a specific Scriptural interpretation as 1 Cor 15:3-4 makes clear. Thus, the belief could have been arrived at prior to any such experiences. It's just that the experiences served as confirmation of the already arrived at belief.

[JehovahsWitness]

In short - correct me if I am wrong - you are not claiming the Christians did not have the belief that Jesus physically died and then following his death returned to life in some form. You are only claiming that the numerous testimonies Paul affirms to , were all some kind of supernatural manifestation or experience which convinced the individuals concerned of a risen Christ . And these experience happened prior to Paul writing his own experience.

Would that be a fair summary of your position?

More or less, yes but first and foremost the belief was based on a specific Scriptural interpretation as 1 Cor 15:3-4 makes clear. Thus, the belief could have been arrived at prior to any such experiences. It's just that the experiences served as confirmation of the already arrived at belief.

1 CORINTHIANS 15

For among the first things I handed on to you was what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;+ 4 and that he was buried,+ yes, that he was raised up+ on the third day+ according to the Scriptures;+ 5

This can read that Paul was taught that Christ died and was raised up. And that these two teachings were supported by (fulfilled) Hebrew prophecy. In any case, its clear that Paul was handed a tradition of Jesus dying and subsequently being alive again so I cannot see how one can accept that and still claim...

there is no evidence a resurrection narrative existed at the time of composition of Mark's gospel circa 70 CE.

or ask ....

Do you have any evidence that the "oral tradition" contained such stories?

You accept Paul's testimony as reliable evidence, he testifies that he received a resurrection tradition (however that came about) and yet claim there is no evidence prior to Paul that such a tradition existed. Can you explain this apparent contradiction in your position?

[TRANSPONDER]

I think so. Suppose, f.s.o.a, that it was agreed that only the empty tomb and the women finding it open and the body gone was all that was reliable (John has no angel explaining anything), then apart from an unverified claim that this was true, we have the women finding the tomb open and the body gone demands an explanation.

Suppose we grant the women ran off. Eventually they said something to someone or we would not know about it. What's most likely? They go back to Bethany (not the house in the city) and report to the disciples (which is agreed by three gospels) and they are told 'oh, the family took the body and have taken it back to Galilee'.

"but the tomb is left open!"

"Of course, it's Joseph's new tomb; he's going to want to use it, eventually."

Hmm; Does no one realize that an Empty Tomb that is OPEN, would have stood out and been investigated by SOMEONE sooner or later?

Marks gospel is supposed to have been written half a century later after the fact. Wouldnt, for instance, Joseph of Arimithea have heard meanwhile that a tomb he paid for and then gave it away as a present to a dead criminal has been vandalized/robbed?

So no! The Tombgirls didnt have to say something to someone or else we wouldnt have christianity today. Thats nonsense.

Besides; if they had, it would make Mark a liar.

But indeed; From the Book of Mormon to Third Reich UFA movies; In fictional narratives women were handles as Dumb and Dumber ever until recently. (Like men wanted to see and have their women.) So therein might lie some explanation.

Did dumb women simply visit a WRONG TOMB?

The conclusion that Jesus has risen from death and walked is not a given, unless to those who already believe it, and the concocted stories that follow are merely bias confirmation, to put clay on the bare wire of the resurrection - claim.

That is why the gospel of Mark half a century later is written for already believers and needs no Post Resurrection Appearances to narrate.
Or so Mark thought. Lectors of his script and later evangelists tried to outwrite him.

The second most probable explanation is that the body was removed alive, or it was hoped so. This is more difficult to explain why they wouldn't shut the tomb after them, but the 'induced' swoon theory is far more likely that the Bible apologists would care to admit, and Jesus returning from death actually is a far less likely hypothesis. Which is of course why contradictory stories had to be 'evolved' in order to tall the reader the conclusion they were supposed to jump to.

A body coming alive again is the least probable possibility, however improbable all other explanations might be.

So why is the proposition that a jew resurrected (which would demand from us to try and explain the mechanics of The Resurrection), more probable than the suspicion that sleep ridden girls before morning stumbling around in a graveyard finally visited the wrong striptease club, umm, tomb

I agree. Like the One Ring Wants to be found, the tomb has to be open. Jesus can walk through brick walls it seems (locked doors, anyway) and the tomb didn't need to open, and if the women had arrived in that dumbell account and saithed one unto another 'we never thought of how to get it open'.

Of course, they would have roused out some men to come and open up. And the tomb would be found empty. That's a better tale, but they (Mark at least) were stuck with a tomb that was empty and it had to be open so they could see it was empty. The later writers could only try to tidy up and explain afterwards, making things worse. not that the Bible savants have ever bothered about that. It is only in the last year or so I have seen anyone question any of this.

[TRANSPONDER]

In short - correct me if I am wrong - you are not claiming the Christians did not have the belief that Jesus physically died and then following his death returned to life in some form. You are only claiming that the numerous testimonies Paul affirms to , were all some kind of supernatural manifestation or experience which convinced the individuals concerned of a risen Christ . And these experience happened prior to Paul writing his own experience.

Would that be a fair summary of your position?

More or less, yes but first and foremost the belief was based on a specific Scriptural interpretation as 1 Cor 15:3-4 makes clear. Thus, the belief could have been arrived at prior to any such experiences. It's just that the experiences served as confirmation of the already arrived at belief.

1 CORINTHIANS 15

For among the first things I handed on to you was what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;+ 4 and that he was buried,+ yes, that he was raised up+ on the third day+ according to the Scriptures;+ 5

This can read that Paul was taught that Christ died and was raised up. And that these two teachings were supported by (fulfilled) Hebrew prophecy. In any case, its clear that Paul was handed a tradition of Jesus dying and subsequently being alive again so I cannot see how one can accept that and still claim...

there is no evidence a resurrection narrative existed at the time of composition of Mark's gospel circa 70 CE.

or ask ....

Do you have any evidence that the "oral tradition" contained such stories?

You accept Paul's testimony as reliable evidence, he testifies that he received a resurrection tradition (however that came about) and yet claim there is no evidence prior to Paul that such a tradition existed. Can you explain this apparent contradiction in your position?

This is a rhetorical trick, and a pretty transparent one.

Let me give a couple of examples, and indulge me, as they require a bit of background and explanation.

There is a court martial going on as the sergeant major accused private McAuslan of being dirty. The lawyer for the private traps the sergeant as a witness.
To shorten the exchange, "What is the standard of smartness in the Gordon highlianders"

"It is High"

"Would a guard be expected to keep up this standard?"

"Certainly, his turnout would be expected to be as good as possible."

"Can you see anyone here who has been on guard duty recently?"

"I see private McAuslan."

No more questions. Ho Ho. But it is a trick that would never have worked other than as a little joke in a made up story.

"Redirect"
"Why was Private McAuslan on guard duty?"
"I was directed to do so by a superior officer"

"And what was his turnout like?"

"The lads had cleaned him up as much as they could and done their best. He still looked a mess but one couldn't call him dirty."

"But when not being cleaned up by his mates?"

"Dirty as a dustbin lid."

The trick is exposed.

Or another.

Eliza and the professor (obviously based on Shaw's Pygmalion, but a penny magazine with little stories sold at Edwardian railway stations).
Higgins comes out of the dentists and presents the dentist to his wife (or whatever Eliza was) when she had nagged him into taking a toothache along.

"Did you perform an extraction?"

"I did...but"

"Tush. And was it without anaesthetic?"

"It was, but.."

"Tut. There you see, Eliza, the dentist holds no fears for me."

"Shut yer mouth, Higgins, now sir, did you really pull his tooth?"

"No ma'am, it was a fishbone stuck in his gum that was causing the pain; easy to remove."

"Wait 'till I get you home, you liar!"

"Can you use the spiky side of the hairbrush this time, Liza?"

Well, sorta, but that is the trick - curtail the inquiry

That is what our pal JW doth with limit it to Paul and the 12 and the gospels alike claim a resurrection. Paul's is for sure an actual claim of a real person, so that proves the gospels.
Slam Dunk.

No, because further questioning shows that they do not match Classic courtroom contradiction and 'tut..no further questions, there was a resurrections claimed, yes?"

"Yes but.."

"Quiet, end of case."

No it is not, and the case covers visions of a risen Jesus in an order not like the gospel version. To ignore this and to try to exclude it from the case is a rhetorical trick, and that is to put it mildly.

The alternative hypothesis is that
Jesus was executed for subversion - as the gospels tell us 'king of the Jews'. A challenge to Roman authority, and nothing to do with a blasphemy charge that only made sense in Christian dogma
Jesus dead, Simon first (as Paul implies) suggests that (like the Gabriel stone may suggest - translation disputed) the dead messiah raised after three days, magically and in the spirit as the failed Messiah Simon was for sure dead.

So was Jesus, wherever he was buried. Likely in Galilee as the gospels keep suggesting that.

So the disciples thought the messianic spirit had floated to heaven where Simon, the twelve, all the apostles and the 500 at once all went "Wah" as they were whipped up to imagine a Jesus as imaginary as the one A man (Paul, for sure) had tea with in the Third heaven, where he rubber - stamped Paul's Gospel he'd just worked out. Or that's how it looks to me.

This works, and fits the discrepancies better than the claim that 1 Cor. validated the discrepant gospels.

The claim that the spirit rose being too tenuous, a solid substance was needed so the body itself had to vanish. Thus the claim of an empty tomb and the women going to find it inexplicably open, The women have no idea what happened (John) so the synoptic version has an angel parked there to tell them the conclusion they should jump to.

This will not do, either. Jesus has to show up, which doesn't happen in Mark of course, but in utterly contradictory versions in the others.

The women run smack into Jesus on the way to say something to someone, and never mind Mark
They All report to the disciples with Mary Magdalene knowing that Jesus has supposedly risen (Luke), contradicting her not knowing in John. Never mind Matthew saying they'd met Jesus (the attempt to write Mary mag out of the story do not work) and the disciples run to the tomb to check, Mary Mag. maybe following them (John)
After the disciples return and Cleophas heard that the women spoke of angels who said Jesus was alive, but they didn't see him (Luke) Mary sees Jesus -obviously for the first time.(John) while in Luke Jesus appears to Simon (Luke following Paul in 2 Cor) and then to Cleophas on the way to Emmaus and has
lunch with them during which they don't even recognise him (and the excuses are as incredible as Trump's magically healing earlobe at the top of his ear ) and then of course, he appears in the evening to all the 12 in Luke..which may also be Luke trying to bring the gospels in line with 1 Cor. As I heard a claim that John might have been amended to have the appearances first in Jerusalem and then in Galilee. Maybe to try to match up the disciples going to Galilee to meet Jesus when he's already appeared in Jerusalem. nb John wangles in the miracle net of fish which Luke has at the calling of disciples and matthew as a poetic simile at 13.47. Thus I hypothesies 'floating stories', not copie d from existing gospels or additional scripture.

If anyone doubts that these are contradictory stories to make a spirit resurrection into a substantial one with a body walking about still with crucifixion marks for identification (Cleophas not noticing - his eyes must be worse than mine) and all separately concocted, they are either in denial or trying to fool us.

I say people hate to be fooled and once they know the trick they won't be fooled by it.

[georgejohn12]

The resurrection narratives exhibit significant variation and evolution over time, which challenges their credibility as reliable eyewitness testimony. From Paul's initial references to visions and revelations without physical descriptions, through Mark’s omission of appearances, to Matthew and Luke introducing new details and altering locations, and finally John’s added elements like teleportation and specific post-resurrection interactions, the accounts grow increasingly complex and contradictory. This pattern of development suggests that these narratives may have evolved into legends rather than preserving consistent, historical eyewitness testimonies. To counter this, one would need to provide evidence of other historical accounts that show similar levels of development while still being considered reliable. Without such evidence, the resurrection stories should be viewed through the lens of legendary growth rather than as factual, consistent reports.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. We know about the problems with history and how tricky it is, trying to tease out reliable history from archaeology, inscriptions that are intended as propaganda rather than information, and histories that rely on hearsay and legend rather than personal experience.

My research project that got me into history, really was Waterloo. There were some who tried to pretend the French won that by a narrow margin but it was Stolen and others, doing a 'nothing can be known for sure' apologetic quote Wellington as implying that nobody can be sure what actually happened.

But the fact is that, debate and question as we might, the broad outlines of what went down can be agreed. (1) see below, if anyone cares. In Egypt the Amarna period is fascinating and mysterious, but more and more history comes out, including DNA work finding which mummies are related. But more remains to be discovered and it is still the subject of debate. After all, Horemheb afterwards tried to delete the entire history.

Just as, I suspect Someone deleted the history of what Jesus realyt did, because Luke knew of an Insurrection in the Temple in Pilate's time, yet Josephus has no mention of this.

But I think the history can be found in another way - seeing through the lies and propaganda of the gospels to what really happened. And we can discover that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, the massacre of innocents was not an event, and the mobile star is a fairy tale, not a conjunction of planets.

The trial (if there was one) is fiddled to blame the Jews. That is Christian propaganda and it is more than overdue that history and the public get to hear of this and never mind how Christianity might get offended and try to suppress the facts.

And the resurrection is a contradictory mess. And I just wonder that Christianity has managed to lie to us -yall for 2,000 years and nobody saw through it. But it is high time we called the BS, dismissed the excuses, exposed the lies, and explained b why the resurrection cannot be true.

But of course, Christianity has such a grip on Politics, the people and even media, that it won't happen overnight. But we have to start somewhere. The beginning will do

(1) Napoleon wasn't well, but he was sharp enough to win. The raid didn't help his initial strategy of bombardment, nor did wellington's placing of his troops behind a ridge to protect them. Also the assault on the farm on the left (Wellington't right) was a waste of resources - unless they took it, which would have caused problems for Wellington. As did the capture of the farm in the middle. Napoleon brought up cannon that devastated the allied formations. If the Prussians hadn't arrived, Wellington would have lost, for sure. But they did, and at the las,t Wellington's use of the hidden guards to blast the Middle guard (and Detmer's Dutch regiment and artillery threw the guard back, too) defeated Napoleon's last stroke which might have won.

Napoleon did lose, but the French army could not have done more than they did. The Dutch/Belgians, despite doubts about their loyalty, performed excellently. The Prussians kept their promise to help. Without that and Wellingtons excellent tactics, Napoleon could and should have won.

[1213]

....The trial (if there was one) is fiddled to blame the Jews....

How is that possible, when Bible tells it was the Romans who did all that?

...Without that and Wellingtons excellent tactics, Napoleon could and should have won.

Too many mistakes leads to lose. Epic history tv has really nice documentaries of Napoleons wars, I recommend to watch them.