Omniscient Gospel Authors?

[RedEye]

There are numerous passages in the gospels where the author displays knowledge of things which they couldn't possibly know. One example:

• Matthew 17
  1 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
  4 Peter said to Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters"one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.

How could the author know that who the three disciples saw was Moses and Elijah? There were no photos of them to compare with. There were no police artist sketches. It could have been any random two people. Yet the author somehow knows that it was Moses and Elijah. How? And why would spirits need shelters? That makes absolutely no sense.

Remember also that Moses and Elijah could not have been in heaven:

• John 3
  13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven"the Son of Man.

So where did "Moses" and "Elijah" come from? Were they temporarily raised from their long-forgotten graves by Jesus for a bit of show and tell? (Yes, I know that Elijah was supposedly taken up by a whirlwind into heaven but that is in direct contradiction to John 3. It was probably just a tragic death in a storm).

Another example:

• Matthew 27
  19 Just then, as Pilate was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent him this message: Leave that innocent man alone. I suffered through a terrible nightmare about him last night.

How could the author of Matthew possibly know what was in a private communication between Pilate and his wife and what she dreamed the night before? The author must have been omniscient!

Isn't this all more confirmation that the gospels are just made-up stories? It's not history. It's pure fiction masquerading as a biography.

[RedEye]

... Some Bible versions translate it as vision or spectacle (which doesn't mean it wasn't real)."

So when you said the text does not say it was a vision, you meant to convey is that the text DOES in fact say that a vision but that when you said vision you had a different meaning for the word than "vision"?

Does that about sum up what you are saying?

No. You need to read my words again. And thank you for once again snipping out the bulk of my argument. As I said, since this is the game you wish to play, I don't feel inclined to respond to you further.