That's your response?
Of course that's my response. I'm NOT taking the word of your fiction books. Corroborate it. I will not settle for faith as you do. Fiction books based on the same main character means they have common ancestry within the plotline, it does not mean that plotline reflects real life.
I pointed out that wasn't my only criticism but it is certainly significant. How is it any more despicable than you refusing to read the Bible but criticising it? At least I read the whole TEoG.
You can't get past the first few pages with finding ridiculous information that goes against all conventional wisdom. That is how your interpretations are more despicable. Because you think your rationalized opinions have as much merit as objective observation and inductive reasoning.
did you miss my post in Epistemology regarding the crucifixion. In fact, I support the nails through the hands, not wrists.
No, that's precisely the post I'm referring to. The likelihood of your interpretation is near zero. Why would Romans go to such great lengths to spike through a precise area of the hands when the wrists would do just fine? This is a rationalization. You interpret it to mean whatever you want. It's implausible. The plausible interpretation, and the most parsimonious one, is that they spiked through the wrists. Of course after making the repeated mistake of thinking adherence to your beliefs is what determines parsimony will require me to make an enlongated post showing why you're wrong.