I would very much like more information why you think that comparison is bad? Claiming that mystics' experiences of the risen Christ is considered credible evidence of some factual event, has to be considered with the fact that mystics of other cultures likewise experience their own respective deity forms. These sorts of experiences, while valid mystically, are not valid when cited as supporting evidence to bolster confused claims of historical facts.
Unless you had some other point you were trying to make that I was missing?
I would say that scripture absolutism aside[im not a scripturalist, assuming you aren't either, then that comparison to the Resurrected Jesus, is definitely something we have to consider.
And here's why. In mystical experiences, we get 'man jesus' inferences, things that the writers only would have known, if told by Jesus, so forth.
So, yes,
there is an inferred literalism.
So, yes although I did not bring that up, it immediately is a question that one would have to ask.
[[Aside, I don't want to get sidetracked here, the type of mystic experiences you're talking about, seem like the type i would question also.
