The written accounts of the Jesus miracle acts are evidence that he did those acts.
(continued from previous Wall of Text)
Many facts in our accepted historical record have zero corroborating evidence.
That's because they don't involve fantastical claims that contradict known scientific principles or, again, basic common sense. It's no great leap of faith to accept that someone once lived and ruled a nation. Claiming that the same someone who once lived and ruled a nation was a talking snake, however, would certainly require corroborating evidence and not just, "Uh, yeah, man, I mean, I know like five hundred other people who all heard the snake talk and he, like, ruled Egypt for nine hundred years....so, it's a fact."
No, if someone had said something was witnessed by 500 others, and if additional sources also reported the same events, that would make it credible. After a certain degree of corroborating reports is attained, it becomes credible, even though there is still doubt and it's not a certainty. But it becomes a reasonable possibility if there are enough extra sources confirming it.
The reason we know there were no "talking snakes" is that there is no evidence of it, in the written record. There aren't any "talking snake" stories which have any such corroborating evidence. If there were such corroboration, like we have for the Jesus miracle acts, then today we'd be hearing some arguments that it really happened, and the "talking snake" debate would be taking place alongside the "resurrection of Jesus" debate. But there is no "talking snake" debate, because there's no evidence for any "talking snake" story. One source written 500 or 5000 or 50,000 years after the alleged event happened is not corroboration, or evidence. But 4 (5) sources dated near to the reported events is evidence.
You absolutely know this to be true, so . . .
No, what is true is that you can't give us one other example from the ancient sources of any miracle claim for which there is evidence, like we have evidence for the Jesus miracle acts. There's not even anything close, as is obvious from your "talking snake" example, as if we really had any evidence for such a thing. Why don't you give us a serious example instead of something silly? And it's significant that we have this one case from about 30 AD, which sticks out as conspicuous, among the many ancient miracle legends, for all of which there is no serious evidence, other than this one case only. We need an explanation why there is this one exception only.
. . . so the fact that you are desperately trying to spin it should be a wake up call.
The "spin" is you pretending there's serious evidence for a "talking snake" story, or for your "Xenu" nuttiness, for which there is no historical source from anywhere near the time of the alleged event. It's not a "spin" to ask for a source from near the time of the alleged event. Why can't you give a serious example of a miracle legend, from the ancient sources near to the time the miracle event allegedly happened? Why is it that you can't offer anything more serious than "Xenu" and a "talking snake" for which there is no serious evidence? We need something dated near to the time of the event, and 2 or 3 sources rather than only one.
. . . or any number of other explanations account for their experience that don't rest on the notion of the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth (then known as "Teegeeack") in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes, and killed them with hydrogen bombs.
And what is the 75-million-year-old document reporting these events?
All eye-witness accounts of course. It came to
Paul L Ron in a Xenu-breathed "vision."
No, Paul spoke of a Christ person who had been witnessed by many others also, prior to his visions. His extra "visions" are his interpretation of the Christ event which was known also by others who witnessed it more directly. He names some of these in his epistle to the Galatians. The Christ person was someone living at the same time, reported by other humans than only Paul, so the accounts are of a contemporary figure in history at a particular time and place, reported by others at that time who encountered him directly, or indirectly through direct witnesses. And Paul knew of him through such witnesses or accounts, and then also added his personal visions to this.
Whereas the L Ron Hubbard vision was of an entity 75 million years earlier, not contemporary to him, and not reported by anyone else near to the time the entity allegedly existed.
Who are the scholars who say this was really written 75 million years ago?
The most respected scholars there could ever be. They are so beyond reproach that they are named "Scientologists!"
Translation: "there are no such scholars, and I'm just being silly." There is no evidence that the source for this legend dates back near the time of the reported events, like our sources for the Jesus events date back near to the time of those events, i.e., to the 1st century AD. You obviously have no such date for any writings about the Xenu figure, which obviously has no relevance to anything about our topic. I.e., relevance to whether certain miracle events around 30 AD did or did not happen. Your analogy is totally irrelevant and pointless, and is actually a further indication that the Jesus miracle acts did happen, since this is the best you can come up with as a comparison, showing there really is no comparison, and there is no other case of miracle claims for which there is any serious evidence. If there were any other case, you would have offered it, instead of this nutty example.
If that's what you're claiming about your source, and those facts are available to us in our information sources, then why are you so sure those events didn't really happen?
Because I'm an intelligent, critical thinking adult.
No, that's not the reason you know those events didn't happen. You have to do better than just blurting out the words "critical" and "intelligent" as if mere words proves anything.
You know we don't have any serious sources for the Xenu nonsense. You know your source for Xenu does NOT date from 75 million years ago, and that legitimate scholars do NOT date it from that time, with scientific evidence, like we have for the Gospel accounts of the 1st century. You know there are NOT
extra sources from that time, such as 2 or 3 or 4 more sources, also which have been dated to that time, like our 4 (5) sources for the Jesus miracles date from the 1st century.
What could you possibly base such a claim on? Where is the information available to us, written by scholars, saying we have these sources written 75 million years ago?
With this nutty example, which you know is nutty, you're really giving us more evidence that the Jesus miracle events really did happen. Why can you only give such goofball arguments, instead of offering to us anything serious? If all you can come up with is this nutcase goofiness, you are only showing further that you have no case, showing even further that the case of Jesus in the 1st century stands out as the single case in history for which there is serious evidence. If there is another case, why can't you name it, instead of only offering us this goofiness?
If you really had serious evidence to offer that some cult legend hero did a miracle, then maybe a reasonable person could believe it, or entertain it as a serious possibility. But if all you can fall back on is your goofy Xenu example, then you're only reinforcing the proposition that Jesus actually did perform the miracle acts, as reported, in the documents, which are evidence from near to the time of the alleged events, making this a unique example of ancient miracle claims, being the only case for which there is evidence.
And you have more than only one such source for this Xenu event -- right?
There are thousands of such sources.
Dated from 75 million years ago, confirmed by scholars, which you can name? There's a website you can name, a wiki page, or something to refer us to, quoting these scholars, identifying the dates for these sources which are 75 million years old? Why are you being silly instead of serious? Whatever your point is, are you admitting that there's no way to make it except by resorting to silliness, such as your Xenu example? If there's a serious example you could offer, why aren't you doing that instead of this goofing off?
If there are miracle events reported, we need more than only one source for it.
How many do you need? That's how many exist.
How about 3. Name the documents and the websites or publications where scholars say these sources are 75 million years old.
Now just imagine if the story of Xenu had actually been merely told orally to subsequent generations--and how prone storytelling is to aggrandizement and editing and alteration--for a good forty years before someone claiming to be L. Ron Hubbard wrote it down and then . . .
Whoops!
I can't continue with this idiocy.
You mean your idiocy of equating 75 million years with 40 years? Of course you can't continue with it. Why did you resort to such an idiotic example in the first place, instead of something serious?
And if "aggrandizement and editing and alteration" turns the "storytelling" into something we can't believe, over the "subsequent generations," then you'll have to toss out 90% of our ancient historical record, which passed through long periods of "editing and alteration" before it was written down in the form we now have it.
You're seriously trying to denigrate a ridiculous cult while being in a ridiculous cult, because yours has "4 (5) sources" (when in fact it only has two; one is . . .
So, your premise is that all the historians and scholars are wrong, who say that the 4 gospels and the Paul epistles are 5 separate sources instead of only 2.
Again, you cannot wave your magic wand and make the 4 Gospel accounts (or 3 of them) disappear. If all you can do is rely on such sophistry as this, in order to prove your point, then you disprove your point. There is no way to compress the 4 Gospels down into only one. It makes a significant difference that we have these extra sources saying the Jesus events happened. This adds credibility, having such extra sources claiming it's true. Just because Mt and Lk quote from Mark does not mean they're the same as Mark. They are 3 separate accounts, with 2 of them quoting from the 3rd. There's nothing wrong with one writer quoting from an earlier writer. The two are still legitimate separate sources, each having mostly their own separate content.
one is Paul and he only argues about a "spiritual" resurrection that he didn't . . .
Calling it "spiritual" does not change the fact that he says many others witnessed this resurrection. He names particular persons who saw Jesus alive. This had to be a "physical" appearance of him, regardless whether you want to call it "spiritual" or some other adjective. Word games don't change the document into something different than it is.
. . . resurrection that he didn't actually witness) and whoever . . .
99% of our recorded ancient historical events were not directly witnessed by the writers we rely on as sources for the events. They report events witnessed by others, which is the same as the resurrection reported by Paul and the Gospel writers. So this reported event fits into the same pattern as our standard historical events, of those times.
. . . and whoever wrote GMark, which actually does not end with Jesus resurrecting from the dead, merely that he "is risen" (i.e., got up).
It's pathetic and depressing, so . . .
Yes, it's pathetic that you think "he got up" is not the same as "he resurrected." When will you give us a real reason we can't believe these reports, instead of only giving us silliness, like nitpicking that "he got up" and "he resurrected" are different?
. . . so we'll skip this stupidity [of mine] to:
ETA: Now apply the exact same scrutiny to a story that actually starts without a resurrection. GMark does not say that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. It ends with the women going to the tomb, seeing it already open and a "young man" sitting inside, who merely tells them Jesus "is risen." Not that he was dead and resurrected from the dead.
The earlier chapter said explicitly that he died.
No, it does not. It says:
Mark 15:37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.
That phrase means he died. It's a common phrase not only today but also in ancient literature, in languages other than English. Whatever your point is, you need to come up with something better than this nitpicking on words.
Aside from the fact that this is a story being retold some forty to fifty years after any such alleged event--not . . .
Most of our ancient history record comes to us from sources more than 50 years later than the event happened. The events reported in less than 20-30 years are a tiny fraction of our ancient history events. Paul's report of Jesus being "handed over" and crucified and buried and resurrecting is from about 25 years later, which is very early for an ancient historical event source.
. . . -- not a verified news account by an eye-witness who was there to record what anyone did or said and breathed --
Of which there are virtually no cases in all the ancient historical record. Why are you demanding this kind of evidence for the Jesus event which does not exist for almost all the known events? i.e., events in our historical record and which we believe, even though the accounts are not from eyewitnesses?
. . . even if it appeared to a bunch of pig-assed ignorant desert peasants and Roman soldiers that Jesus appeared to be dead, that does not automatically just mean that he was.
We have probably millions of cases of humans reported as dead or being killed in the accounts of the events which we rely on for our knowledge of that history. And so your reasoning is that we should not believe anyone was killed, because the only evidence for it are the reports from those pig-assed observers at that time. So then you think in ancient times no one ever died or was killed? or all accounts of such deaths are not credible?
Even Pilate was inexplicably surprised that Jesus had already died:
Mark 15:44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead.
The words following say Pilate first checked to make sure:
44 And Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. 45 And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.
(In v. 44, the English word "that" is incorrect. The correct word is "if" -- i.e., IF he was already dead, not THAT he was dead. There was uncertainty, and the text clearly implies that the centurion first had to go back to check, and then he returned to report it as certain.)
It's easy to explain how Jesus may have died sooner than normal, as he had been beaten earlier, and this could easily cause death to come sooner.
This is precisely why, in later retellings of Mark's story, the authors embellish it with a Roman soldier stabbing the apparently dead Jesus to make sure that he was, in fact, dead (which, likewise, would not necessarily prove death either).
What it's proof of is that everyone thought he was killed, and the best explanation why they thought this is that it was so. It is nutty to insist that he was not really dead and that people knew but made up stories to create a fiction that he had died, because they were creating a fiction story which they wanted to promote for some purpose. There's no evidence that he did not die or that anyone thought he did not.
The accounts might contain fictional elements to reinforce the killing of Jesus, or some extra emphasis on this, to make a point, but the only reason such extra elements might have been added is that those reporting this were sure he had been killed, and they had reason to emphasize this, to add impact, or even to gain more believers, but all because they were sure he had been killed, and all the reports confirmed this, and what was important was to impress this fact onto people's minds. None of which makes any sense unless he actually had been killed and everyone close to the event knew this.
Which, if we ARE going to take these accounts as being at all historically accurate, tells us that it was not typical for someone to have died so early on in the process. Indeed, the entire reason why crucifixion was such a horrific punishment was that it usually took several days to kill you.
But not in all cases. And we see how Jesus was subjected to beatings earlier (Mt. 26:67-68, Mk. 14:65, Lk. 22:63-64), which might have contributed to his death. This beating scenario, related in all 3 Synoptic Gospels, is probably a real event, even if some other parts of the trial are not.
And considering that he was, you know, GOD--an omnipotent being--or, at the very least, the "son" of a god, it seems even more suspicious, but let's table that and instead think--oh THINK--exactly how it could be that someone who had supposedly been extensively tortured and flayed and beaten (wearing a crown of thorns no less) and had been losing significant blood the whole time
before being nailed to a cross could have appeared to be dead, but actually not be dead.
If only there were a clinical term for someone who gives nearly every appearance of being dead hanging ten feet up on a cross--and from a combination of severe trauma and blood loss--but is not actually dead. Damnit! What could such a condition be called?
Well, regardless of such an elusive term, what other clues might we find in the text, if we are to take it at face value and consider it a factual account and not just a bullshit story? Well, let's see if anything leaps out at us:
So as evening approached, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. 44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45 When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. 46 So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.
Well, wait, do we have any additional information from these invaluable anecdotal accounts? Perhaps another embellishment? Let's try John's version:
39 Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. 40 They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it with the spices in linen cloths, according to the burial custom of the Jews.
Huh. So, we have surprise from a very knowledgeable source in regard to crucifixion that Jesus had died "already" and we have the fact that Jesus was taken down and essentially
bandaged in burial linens, which were themselves soaked in some one hundred pounds of
myrrh and aloes, what we might call "medicine" today.
Your point has gotten lost in the shuffle. There probably was not the 100 pounds of myrrh and aloes, which is a later embellishment by John.
(Let's clarify one point: the correct weight was about 70-75 pounds. The Greek word
litras is translated as "pounds," but a
litra was really less than a pound, about 11.5 ounces. The NIV translation says "75 pounds" rather than 100. However, most translations prefer to keep the
hekaton word ("hundred"), while retaining the "pounds" word rather than saying 100 litras. So it was not 100 pounds, but 75, which is still an excessive amount, for healing or embalming. The theory that it was for healing doesn't explain the excessive amount.)
But even if it's true that so much myrrh and aloes was purchased, this does not mean the body was soaked in it or that it was "medicine." Rather, this would be used for long-term preservation of the body, in the following days or weeks.
You obviously have a theory that the myrrh and aloes were used to heal Jesus, rather than for embalming purposes, and that he was not really dead. But these ointments were also used for embalming, or anointing a dead body, to prevent the odor of decaying. There's no indication anywhere in the accounts that their purpose was for healing, or that Jesus was not really dead. This is entirely speculation, with nothing in any text to indicate that he wasn't really dead, or that they tried to heal him from the wounds.
The very large quantity of these ointments is consistent with either possibility, for healing or for embalming, though in either case it's an unusually large quantity. So the large quantity gives no clue what the purpose was. Preserving the body for a long time could explain the need for the large quantity, rather than its use as "medicine" to heal the body. Or, it's just an exaggerated figure from John.
The theory that he did not really die and was taken down prematurely contradicts all the accounts we have. So it's just speculation, like many other theories. Such theories are plausible, but there are hundreds of theories that contradict the existing accounts and evidence telling us what happened, and there is no compelling reason to reject the reported facts in favor of a theory which is contradicted by all the accounts.
If you reject the existing accounts, you can adopt many oddball theories about what happened, not only about the Jesus events, but any historical event about which there could be disputed versions of what happened, or why it happened. Just because you can come up with these offbeat alternative theories does not mean reasonable people must accept those theories. We can reasonably believe the reports, at face value, which we have in the evidence, especially if these reports are not of a miracle, but only say that someone died, and also if no report says otherwise.
Here are the known healing properties of
aloe alone:
Aloe vera is a popular medicinal plant that has been used for thousands of years. It is best known for treating skin injuries, but also has several other beneficial effects on health...Aloe vera gel contains powerful antioxidants, which belong to a large family of substances known as polyphenols. These polyphenols, along with several other compounds in Aloe vera, can help inhibit the growth of certain bacteria that can cause infections in humans
And there's this more
clinical study:
Wounds and related injuries remain a major cause of death and disability. Wound healing is a complex, highly regulated process that includes cellular, molecular, biochemical, and physiological events that permit living organisms to repair accidental lesions. This process includes 3 overlapping phases: inflammation, proliferation and tissue formation, and tissue remodeling. These events are initiated at the time of physical injury and continue throughout the healing process.
The proliferative phase involves reepithelialization and granulation tissue formation, which includes fibroplasia and angiogenesis. Reepithelialization refers to the resurfacing of the epidermis by keratinocytes, the main cell type of the skin epidermis, from the wound edges and/or residuals of skin appendages. Keratinocytes begin migration 12 to 24 hours after injury. The migration and proliferation of these cells are key events for reepithelialization and closure of the wound gap. During granulation tissue formation, fibroblasts migrate, proliferate, and synthesize large amounts of collagen and other extracellular matrix to fill the dermal defect in a process known as fibroplasia.4 During angiogenesis, new blood vessels are formed in the wounded area. Angiogenesis depends on the migration and proliferation of endothelial cells from pre-existing blood vessels in the wound edge.
The objective of wound management is to heal wounds in the shortest amount of time with minimal pain, discomfort, and scarring. Thus, improving treatment for wound healing and tissue repair will improve the quality of life of patients with wounds as well as reduce the overall cost of wound-related health care.
...
The results suggest A vera accelerates wound healing by promoting the proliferation and migration of fibroblasts and keratinocytes and by protecting keratinocytes from preservative-induced death.
But what about
myrrh?
You may be familiar with myrrh from Biblical stories even if you’re not sure what it is...Ancient Egyptians used myrrh and other essential oils to embalm mummies, as the oils not only provide a nice scent but also slow decay. Scientists now know this is because the oils kill bacteria and other microbes...Preliminary animal research suggests that myrrh can directly kill bacteria, as well as stimulate the immune system to make more white blood cells, which also kill bacteria. In test-tube studies, myrrh oil has strong effects against several infectious bacteria, including some drug-resistant ones...Applying diluted myrrh oil on your skin may aid wound healing and fight microbes that can cause infections.
So, both myrrh and aloe soaked linen bandages would be the perfect solution to healing and killing harmful bacteria from infecting any open wounds that one might receive from, I don't know, a crown of thorns and being flayed and beaten and having nails driven into your feet and the like?
You're obsessing on the healing use of the oils, but that doesn't change the fact that they were also used for anointing dead bodies, and all the accounts say this was their purpose here, and that the body of Jesus was taken down after he had died, and there is nothing whatever in the accounts suggesting that he didn't really die.
You can add many speculations like this, and no one can prove your speculation is wrong. There are many other speculations about what Jesus was really about, what really happened, contrary to the traditional beliefs, or contrary to the earliest accounts we have.
There are many offbeat goofy theories about Jesus -- take your pick.
There are theories that Jesus traveled to Asia, to India, and learned all he knew from the sages of the East. There's no evidence for this speculation, from any serious source for the 1st century, and yet it's a theory which cannot be disproved.
There's a theory that Jesus was the same person as Judas the Galilean, a revolutionary figure mentioned in some sources. There's no evidence for this, and yet it's a theory which cannot be disproved.
There's a theory that the Dead Sea Scrolls, or major parts of them, were written much later than the evidence shows, and that the early Jerusalem Church leader James was actually the "Teacher of Righteousness" named in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This theory is promoted by Robert Eisenman, who is a recognized Bible scholar, and yet his theory is rejected by virtually all other Bible scholars.
There are hundreds of goofy theories which contradict the standard beliefs of what happened or what the earliest accounts tell us happened. You can pick and choose between all the offbeat theories, as you prefer, but there is nothing compelling about such theories that requires a reasonable person to subscribe to them. Perhaps some of the offbeat theories are actually true, but it's reasonable to just believe what the evidence shows, rather than these alternative theories, when there's no evidence for them.
An offbeat theory might be true in some case, but still it runs counter to the testimony of the only 4 sources from the time, and it's reasonable to believe the sources from the time rather than a later interpretation.
If your theory is that the real reason for the ointments was to heal him from wounds, you're not getting that from John or any other source. You're citing as your source John's story about Nicodemus and the myrrh and aloes, but if you accept John's report about this, then why don't you also accept his report that Jesus was killed? Is the source reliable or not? He says Jesus died and that the oils were for anointing his dead body. If you don't believe the account about that, then why do you believe it about the myrrh and aloes, or about the large quantity of these?
It's OK to believe some parts more than others, but you have to have a reason for it, e.g., a miracle claim is less likely. But what is less credible about the claim that Jesus was killed? Some points can be doubted, like a theological interpretation, or a miracle claim. But why dispute that someone died, when all the accounts say he died, and there's no hint anywhere that he did not? There are doubts as to whether the body might have been stolen, also whether he was really alive later, i.e., whether the risen Jesus they saw was really the same Jesus, and also whether he would ever return, or if his return was taking too long. There are many doubts, but there is no doubt whether he really died. This is never questioned.
And then being placed in a fresh, effectively climate-controlled cave with a life-preserving rock closing off the entrance, so that it creates as nearly perfect a sterile, cool chamber as possible in those hot desert days (combined with a body wrapped in medicinal linen bandages), such that, someone . . .
You are adding your own artificial facts to what we have in the written accounts. You're pretending someone arranged a "climate-controlled" environment to create "sterile" conditions, and applied "medicinal bandages" to the body, etc., with some medical knowledge of how to better treat the injured patient. This is entirely your own creative addition to the reported facts, based on speculation only, and contradicting what the accounts say. There is no reason why these speculations should be believed instead of what we're told in the earliest accounts, which are the best evidence. Just as there is no reason to believe Jesus traveled to India, and other oddball theories not based on any evidence.
. . . someone who, say, had slipped into a temporary coma from blood loss and trauma could be taken down long before actual death in order to heal naturally to the point . . .
You mean those who took him down KNEW he was not dead, and their intent was to heal him? But then, who else knew he was not really dead? If these ones intending to revive him knew he was not dead, why wouldn't others also know it? including the soldiers? Why wouldn't the one sent to check also know it? and report back to Pilate that Jesus was not yet dead? If such comas were common among crucified victims, wouldn't this be known, and wouldn't precautions be taken to first ensure that the victim was really dead before taking him down?
But according to all 4 accounts the ones taking him down thought he was dead, and they treated the body not to heal it, but to anoint it according to the custom. There was nothing in their behavior to indicate that they were trying to heal his body. Everything indicates only their intention to preserve it from decaying.
. . . to the point where a few days later he awakens from his coma and some of his buddies watching over him open the tomb and take him down into town thinking it was a miracle and . . .
But how often did such a body awaken? and not planned in advance by those who took him down? How many other cases were there of a crucified victim being taken down early, thought to be dead, but then awakening later to everyone's surprise? Why wouldn't there be other such cases? Why would this mistake happen only once?
. . . was a miracle and the like, leaving behind the same creepy "young man" in linen that had evidently been hanging around Jesus when Jesus was arrested to tell anyone seeking jesus that a miracle--that really wasn't a miracle--had happened etc., etc., etc., etc.
With all the thousands of crucifixions which happened, many others also would have recovered, taken down before they had died, and we'd have many other stories of such miracles. This theory is not plausible unless you can explain why it happened only once, or why all the other times there was no report of it and it's totally forgotten. Why would people take note of it in this one case only?
IOW, even if we do take your desperate, non-faith based insistence on these accounts as being at all reflecting of actual events, we still find within them strong evidence not of a miracle, but of natural events that . . .
What "strong evidence"? You've given no evidence for your alternate scenario. The only evidence we have is the written documents, which all say he died, and none saying anything about his body being healed.
. . . natural events that were either mistaken for miracles or simply got embellished over time to be turned into miracles that actually were not.
That's your theory of what happened, but you've shown no evidence for it. Why must we believe a mere alternative theory for which there is no evidence? and which contradicts all the reported evidence?
No "nitpicking" involved.
It's nitpicking words when you say "he breathed his last" does not mean "he died," or "he got up" is not the same as "he resurrected."
(This Wall of Text to be continued)
