Why does it have to be "antagonistic?"
Consider this from Book VII 3:4 of Pliny's Natural History.
Simple reporting of an alleged miraculous event. There is no apparent hostility or antagonism. I don't think anyone in his right mind believes such bullshit but Pliny wrote it down. Pliny, who died in the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD, simply seems to have never heard of such a miraculous event as your godboy coming back from the dead, and it was more than 40 years earlier according to your fables so time enough I would think for the story to have gotten around--had it ever happened. Curious but perhaps you are willing to overlook such things in your zeal to "believe?"
But you wish to equate 40+ writers...all copying from each other and pushing different variants of the same story... as evidence that the story is true, if I get your as-you-say "transparent" attempt. Does that make Captain Kirk real because of all the fan books which have been written about the Star Trek series?
"Antagonistic" is not required. But someone who does not have a vested interest in pushing this bullshit story most certainly is. You need to concentrate on the observation "one lies and the other swears to it" before pursuing this line of reasoning. Only believers tell us about jesus. How very convenient.
Consider this from Book VII 3:4 of Pliny's Natural History.
Quote:(4) The change of females into males is undoubtedly no fable. We find it stated in the Annals, that, in the consulship of P. Licinius Crassus and C. Cassius Longinus,17 a girl, who was living at Casinum18 with her parents, was changed into a boy; and that, by the command of the Aruspices, he was con- veyed away to a desert island.
Simple reporting of an alleged miraculous event. There is no apparent hostility or antagonism. I don't think anyone in his right mind believes such bullshit but Pliny wrote it down. Pliny, who died in the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD, simply seems to have never heard of such a miraculous event as your godboy coming back from the dead, and it was more than 40 years earlier according to your fables so time enough I would think for the story to have gotten around--had it ever happened. Curious but perhaps you are willing to overlook such things in your zeal to "believe?"
But you wish to equate 40+ writers...all copying from each other and pushing different variants of the same story... as evidence that the story is true, if I get your as-you-say "transparent" attempt. Does that make Captain Kirk real because of all the fan books which have been written about the Star Trek series?
"Antagonistic" is not required. But someone who does not have a vested interest in pushing this bullshit story most certainly is. You need to concentrate on the observation "one lies and the other swears to it" before pursuing this line of reasoning. Only believers tell us about jesus. How very convenient.
