> That's not what I said at all. I said that a person that says something that is untrue, believing it to be true, is not a liar.
But if the person who initially told him that untruth *knew* it to be untrue, then it's still a lie. It doesn;t make the second person a liar, just wrong... but that first person IS a liar.
So, obviously, the Apostles could well have believed everything they said, and it could still have been a pack of lies. Someone *else* told them things, you see, and performed apparent miracles...
Another straw man. You are answering an argument that I did not make. At this point, all I said is that they were not liars. That, by itself, does not lead one to believe that what they said was the truth. If the apostles were the eyewitnesses, by the way, then the option is not available to us that they believed what they did because someone else told them about it.
I did read the other post about the empty tomb, and you are changing the argument. It was not just that the tomb was empty--but that someone had been buried there first, under particular conditions, and then disappeared. We haven't examined the possible explanations for that--because there are several--but the argument wasn't "Empty tomb=Savior" and you know it.
I also see that you do not want to continue this discussion. May we both be the better for the discussion we did have.