(October 29, 2022 at 12:25 pm)LinuxGal Wrote:(October 29, 2022 at 12:16 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Jesus' so-called "resurrection" is not historical, because, no one living at the time bothered to mention it among the many thousands of literate human beings who could have. The Romans did not mention it, neither did the Jews, nor the many thousands of pagans. It was not until significantly later that the belief arose, first, as a "spiritual" resurrection that was only visible to believers, and later on, as the belief evolved and morphed over time, to a physical resurrection. With the earliest accounts of Paul being phantasmal to the later of accounts of the Gospel of John (and, still later, the Gospel of Peter) being physical, the resurrection accounts become more "literal" over time.
These accounts are the stuff of legend, not history.
Correct, but to address the common objection than "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", if the accounts contradict each other as sharply as they do here they are most emphatically not factual.
In some cases, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In the case of Sasquatch, the absence of visible feces is strong evidence against the existence of such a creature, unless, of course, he and/or his feces is invisible, not smelly, etc.
