 So if we're gonna be talking about whether or not there's strong evidence for a resurrection, Jesus being in Jerusalem around Passover isn't strong evidence for a resurrection. You're completely correct that the example I gave doesn't pertain to the resurrection. I understood the point was to show that these corresponding accounts demonstrate the reliability and truthfulness of the witnesses that are reporting in the Gospels. I think I would agree that they are generally trustworthy on some aspects of it, but I don't think me telling you a story about Elvis doing Blue Hawaii means that if I also tell you a story about how he rose from the dead and was abducted by aliens, my truthfulness is no longer relevant. It's not about whether or not I'm an active liar. It's about whether or not I'm likely to be correct or whether or not I have a bias. It's undeniable the Gospel authors have a bias. Yeah, sure, I wouldn't dispute that, but that doesn't mean that they weren't reliable or truthful reporters. I'm not saying that they're not reliable. I'm saying you don't get to assume they are.