Oh I just had to laugh when you posted this. Want to know why?
Let’s turn our attention to Matthew 27: 51-54.
This passage asserts that hundreds of zombies rose from their graves and walked around Jerusalem in the wake of the “crucifixion”.
First, NONE of the other canonical gospels includes this vignette, which makes one call into question such matters as consilience even before we ask ourselves whether this frankly bizarre event could have happened in reality. But, perhaps more fatal to the idea that your mythology purportedly constitutes “historical reportage”, is the fact that the occupying Roman forces seem not to have noticed all of these zombies walking about the streets of Jerusalem. We are, after all, dealing here in the case of the Rmaans, with a civilisation that established a track record of documenting meticulously even mundane events such as tax returns, let alone anything as spectacular as this. If you need a pointer to Roman diligence in the matter of recording history, then the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE is perhaps the canonical example.
I think it safe to conclude that this passage is a blatant fabrication, and a particularly fatuous one at that. Which on its own punctures a serious hole in the idea that your mythology constitutes “historical reportage”.
I’m also reminded at this juncture, that one Michael Licona got himself into serious trouble, when he stated in one of his writings that this passage was “allegorical” rather than historical fact, which led to various “inerrantists” launching into him attack dog style. Another individual commented on this affair in another place as follows:
I commented in the same place thus after that above post:
Though I’m used to seeing mythology fanboys demonstrate time and again, that their modus operandi can be summed up as “if reality and my mythology differ, then reality is wrong and my mythology is right”.
Meanwhile, here’s another example of elementary failure on the part of the authors of your mythology, namely the beginning of Matthew 4, covering the purported “temptation” of Jesus by the devil. According to this account, Jesus was purportedly alone during this event, at which point, the obvious question to ask is “if no one else was around to observe this event, how could it possibly have been written about by said nonexistent observer?”
Your mythology fails to withstand scrutiny using even elementary questions, let alone any more sophisticated tools.
And again, that sound you hear is myself and many other people who paid attention in class laughing.
Apart from the fact that the Spiderman comics are honestly presented as fiction, the passages I covered above pretty much hammer several nails into the coffin for any assertion that your favourite mythology constitutes “historical reportage”.
This is a bare faced lie, and you are strongly advised to retract it. Not least in the light of my presenting cogent reasons for rejecting key assertions from your mythology.
We happen to understand what constitutes genuine evidence for a given postulate. This can consist of [1] a deductive proof in an appropriate formal system (see: pure mathematics), or [2] observational data supporting the postulate (see: physics, chemistry, biology etc). Blind assertions in a mythology constitute “evidence” only for the propensity of the authors thereof to engage in fanciful fabrication. Frequently mirrored by apologetic fabrication on the part of mythology fanboys who are desperate to prop up the original mythological fabrications.
You might want to factor into the matter of your retraction of this lie you’ve just posted, that several individuals here have a sufficiently rigorous background in such topics as experimental methodology or formal logic, to know what constitutes genuine evidence for a postulate and what doesn’t. Indeed, if called upon, I can provide an illustrative example in a subsequent post.
Oh, and before you mistakenly try to assert that I’m engaging in the same sort of summary dismissal that mythology fanboys like you routinely engage in when presented with, say, scientific papers on topics such as evolution or abiogenesis, this would be a serious mistake on your part, as any honest reading of the material I’ve presented above should establish. I for one understand that mythology isn’t written in a vacuum, and as a consequence, there may well have existed one of more individuals upon which the “Jesus character” is based, not least because being an apocalyptic preacher or “prophet” was something of a cottage industry in first-century Judea. This much is established historical fact. Whether the “Jesus character” was based upon a single individual, or was a composite derived from several individuals, may never be definitively known, but we do know that there did exist individuals at that time who could have provided material for the character construction in question.
None of this, of course, validates any of the fantastic supernatural assertions erected around this character, almost all of which are incapable of being subject to any proper test of their validity (and quite possibly, deliberatedly designed to be thus by whoever generated said assertions).
Bullshit. See above for the detailed explanation of why this assertion of yours is bullshit.