You're operating with definitions, then, that I'm unfamiliar with. I think my post was pretty generic. It would apply to any event eyewitnessed in history.
I merely stated, with minimal regard for supporting the contention, that "intentional misleading" as a motivation for the apostles was ruled out. Likewise, I stated that "unintentional misleading" is the worst one could charge against them.
I doubt it. I asked for evidence deities, not for evidence that people believed in deities. I would hope you can understand that.
I think my post was pretty generic. It would apply to any event eyewitnessed in history.
No, it wouldn't. Many eyewitness accounts match corroborating or contradictory physical evidence.
I merely stated, with minimal regard for supporting the contention, that "intentional misleading" as a motivation for the apostles was ruled out.
Except, it hasn't been ruled out. Even if one did rule it out, that is still not evidence for deities; that is evidence for apostles believing in deities.
Likewise, I stated that "unintentional misleading" is the worst one could charge against them.
No, it's not. The worst one could charge is that the gospels are outright fabrications that bear little connection to reality.
PS. And there is also an additional variable to add to your two of whether any eyewitness accounts were truthful or untruthful (T v NT) and whether that was knowingly or unknowingly so (K v UK). The additional variable is whether the interpretation of what, if anything, had been seen was correct (C) or Incorrect (I). That gives you eight possibilities.