Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

[Blue155]

Certain kinds of question look impressive on the surface, but really doesn’t engage with the core evidence or the event itself. It’s like someone saying, “How could a detective possibly collect all the evidence in one day? How did the detective drive to the crime scene so fast? How did the witness find the exact brand of gloves in one afternoon? How did a criminal carry all that money or ammo all by himself?”

There are plausible, reasonable explanations and answers that have been given to these types of questions. It’s not that there are no answers, it’s just that some will refuse to accept any and all explanations or answers, will try to explain them away or find something else wrong about them. Especially if it conflicts with their beliefs.

 

[rewriter]

Certain kinds of question look impressive on the surface, but really doesn’t engage with the core evidence or the event itself. It’s like someone saying, “How could a detective possibly collect all the evidence in one day? How did the detective drive to the crime scene so fast? How did the witness find the exact brand of gloves in one afternoon? How did a criminal carry all that money or ammo all by himself?”

There are plausible, reasonable explanations and answers that have been given to these types of questions. It’s not that there are no answers, it’s just that some will refuse to accept any and all explanations or answers, will try to explain them away or find something else wrong about them. Especially if it conflicts with their beliefs.

Excellent points, but there are also questions that people refuse to ask that can make a difference. An example would be that it is known where the suspect was at a specific time before the crime, known when and where the crime was committed and where the suspect was at a specific time after the crime, but no one bothers to ask how could the suspect get to the scene of the crime and get to his later known location in the available time? This question might get ignored because answering it would conflict with their beliefs. This is ignoring a significant question, and it does happen. It is called, "my mind is made up, don't bother me with the facts".

 

[GWH]

\
Well, consider the timeline for collecting the myrrh and aloes. Whoever did this did not know there would be a body to bury until after 3pm, and the Passover started at 6pm when he could not work, i.e. carry 75 pounds. Major problem to not only find but also collect and deliver. Hence it came from the Jerusalem temple in all likelihood, which needed the consent of the high priest, likely both. The only other plausible source would have been Antipas, but he would be unlikely to store that type of quantity in Jerusalem.

As for the issue of two high priests, which one did Paul go to? Neither had any judicial authority including zero in Damascus and one was clearly a Jesus supporter, yet the two had to work together. Now if you know your history, there are other issues as well, but that is different matter

What it comes down to is a huge pile of evidence that the accounts in the gospels and Acts are highly questionable as they exist today. Two gospels show evidence of having been edited, Acts is also known to have a potentially deleted ending, a long version of Acts is known to exist, but it is of unclear dating, so maybe a later addition.

Now back to my question, very pertinent as you chide people for not answering your questions, how do you propose that Nicodemus managed to find and deliver 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes in such a short period of time?

Okay, John 19:39-40 says that Nicodemus brought 75 Roman pounds (about 34kg) of myrrh and aloes to anoint Jesus' body for burial,
which was an amount suitable for a king (cf. 2Chr. 16:14). Myrrh was a fragrant resin associated with suffering death, given to Jesus at his birth by the magi, and that amount would have been very expensive that only a rich person could afford to purchase. Nicodemus went with Joseph of Arimathea to wrap the body in linen cloths with these spices according to Jewish custom.

Jesus had been predicting his death for a while, so perhaps Nick had been accumulating the spices, and maybe Joe of A. had connections with an embalmer. As for the high priest of Acts 9:1, again I ask who said there were two of them at that time?

I see no huge pile of evidence against Nick having a lot of myrrh, but I am aware that the production of our extant Bible was akin to making sausage, which is why I am content with believing God ensured the result is sufficient for revealing His requirement for salvation, even though it may contain some discrepancies.

That is my proposal.

 

[rewriter]

Okay, John 19:39-40 says that Nicodemus brought 75 Roman pounds (about 34kg) of myrrh and aloes to anoint Jesus' body for burial,
which was an amount suitable for a king (cf. 2Chr. 16:14). Myrrh was a fragrant resin associated with suffering death, given to Jesus at his birth by the magi, and that amount would have been very expensive that only a rich person could afford to purchase. Nicodemus went with Joseph of Arimathea to wrap the body in linen cloths with these spices according to Jewish custom.

Jesus had been predicting his death for a while, so perhaps Nick had been accumulating the spices, and maybe Joe of A. had connections with an embalmer. As for the high priest of Acts 9:1, again I ask who said there were two of them at that time?

I see no huge pile of evidence against Nick having a lot of myrrh, but I am aware that the production of our extant Bible was akin to making sausage, which is why I am content with believing God ensured the result is sufficient for revealing His requirement for salvation, even though it may contain some discrepancies.

That is my proposal.

At 9 am on the day Jesus was crucified there were three possible outcomes. Most likely was that he would die and be thrown into a communal grave, no chance for any anointings. As for Nicodemus collecting myrrh over time, he had about 3 years maximum, but Jesus did not start talking about his coming death for likely at least 2 years later. Accumulating the quantity reported would be difficult even with a full three years, and that is assuming that he was dedicated and trusting enough to anticipate that Jesus would not do something disgraceful before he died. And as a Pharisee, collecting Myrrh and aloes would be a highly questionable activity as opposed to donating them to the temple. As for Joseph of Arimathea having a connection with an embalmer, good possibility as the position did not exist in Judea at the time. You seem to be grasping at straws to preserve your position.

As for two high priests in the between 10 BCE and 70 CE, it remains the DSS and Josephus, unless you want to include high priests outside of Jerusalem, then you can also count two by using the Talmud, which actively avoids the unofficial high priest, but Josephus actively avoids the high priest who was not in Jerusalem.

But since you see some possible discrepancies in the Bible as well as God's ensuring the outcome, are you saying that God tolerates errors in His work? Or could the discrepancies be due to human error despite God's wish

 

[Blue155]

Excellent points, but there are also questions that people refuse to ask that can make a difference. An example would be that it is known where the suspect was at a specific time before the crime, known when and where the crime was committed and where the suspect was at a specific time after the crime, but no one bothers to ask how could the suspect get to the scene of the crime and get to his later known location in the available time? This question might get ignored because answering it would conflict with their beliefs. This is ignoring a significant question, and it does happen. It is called, "my mind is made up, don't bother me with the facts".

Just because we might not know every step or exact method does not mean the event didn’t occur. Even if history suggests the event was unlikely or difficult, unless it truly renders the event logically or physically impossible with no plausible explanation, such questions remain unanswered speculations rather than genuine objections.

The police might not know exactly how a thief carried every single item, what all streets he took during an event, or how he avoided every single obstacle, but that doesn’t mean the robbery didn’t happen. As long as it’s logically possible and there are plausible explanations, the missing ‘how’ details don’t invalidate the fact that a crime occurred. Just because some historical ‘how’ details are unknown or seem unlikely, it doesn’t make the event impossible. The “how’s” don’t eliminate the “did it”.

 

[Blue155]

Okay, John 19:39-40 says that Nicodemus brought 75 Roman pounds (about 34kg) of myrrh and aloes to anoint Jesus' body for burial,
which was an amount suitable for a king (cf. 2Chr. 16:14). Myrrh was a fragrant resin associated with suffering death, given to Jesus at his birth by the magi, and that amount would have been very expensive that only a rich person could afford to purchase. Nicodemus went with Joseph of Arimathea to wrap the body in linen cloths with these spices according to Jewish custom.

Jesus had been predicting his death for a while, so perhaps Nick had been accumulating the spices, and maybe Joe of A. had connections with an embalmer. As for the high priest of Acts 9:1, again I ask who said there were two of them at that time?

I see no huge pile of evidence against Nick having a lot of myrrh, but I am aware that the production of our extant Bible was akin to making sausage, which is why I am content with believing God ensured the result is sufficient for revealing His requirement for salvation, even though it may contain some discrepancies.

That is my proposal.

To show that an alleged discrepancy isn’t a real problem, all you need is one plausible solution. We don’t need a full step-by-step inventory of how it all happened. Just a single reasonable explanation is enough to preserve the possibility that the event actually happened. You did that, showing how the alleged “impossibility” isn’t actually impossible. Good job.

 

[rewriter]

Just because we might not know every step or exact method does not mean the event didn’t occur. Even if history suggests the event was unlikely or difficult, unless it truly renders the event logically or physically impossible with no plausible explanation, such questions remain unanswered speculations rather than genuine objections.

The police might not know exactly how a thief carried every single item, what all streets he took during an event, or how he avoided every single obstacle, but that doesn’t mean the robbery didn’t happen. As long as it’s logically possible and there are plausible explanations, the missing ‘how’ details don’t invalidate the fact that a crime occurred. Just because some historical ‘how’ details are unknown or seem unlikely, it doesn’t make the event impossible. The “how’s” don’t eliminate the “did it”.

True, but assuming the suspect was a 50-minute drive away from the scene of the crime an hour before and a 55-minute drive away an hour later, don't you think it would be a reasonable question to ask if he had access to a car during that time? Remember, people with a verifiable alibi, well away from the scene of the crime, for the time of a crime, have been convicted for the crime.

And I can give you multiple examples of "possible" solutions to events that people do not want to have had occur. The problem being that the situations I would describe, and the solutions that are widely disseminated and accepted, accomplish their tasks by distorting the event, such as leaving out or changing details to fit the desired narrative.

Mark and John both show signs of editing would you care to explain how that point does not raise questions? Acts differs with Paul's claimed timeline, perhaps you can explain that also. One point I often hear from Christians but is not directly involved with this specific discussion requires one of three books in the New Testament to be in error, there are three ways to make two of the three correct, but never all three, but those who make the claim will twist themselves into pretzels to avoid admitting that.

I point out issues that biblical scholars (seminary NT profs) find baffling, yet you and some other "knowledgeable" people in here can easily resolve. I wonder how your easy solutions cannot be found by these experts.

 

[GWH]

At 9 am on the day Jesus was crucified there were three possible outcomes. Most likely was that he would die and be thrown into a communal grave, no chance for any anointings. As for Nicodemus collecting myrrh over time, he had about 3 years maximum, but Jesus did not start talking about his coming death for likely at least 2 years later. Accumulating the quantity reported would be difficult even with a full three years, and that is assuming that he was dedicated and trusting enough to anticipate that Jesus would not do something disgraceful before he died. And as a Pharisee, collecting Myrrh and aloes would be a highly questionable activity as opposed to donating them to the temple. As for Joseph of Arimathea having a connection with an embalmer, good possibility as the position did not exist in Judea at the time. You seem to be grasping at straws to preserve your position.

As for two high priests in the between 10 BCE and 70 CE, it remains the DSS and Josephus, unless you want to include high priests outside of Jerusalem, then you can also count two by using the Talmud, which actively avoids the unofficial high priest, but Josephus actively avoids the high priest who was not in Jerusalem.

But since you see some possible discrepancies in the Bible as well as God's ensuring the outcome, are you saying that God tolerates errors in His work? Or could the discrepancies be due to human error despite God's wish

I doubt we can calculate degree of probability regarding God's existence and the Gospel's truth,
but if you say there is a chance of resurrection to heaven, I will take that over belief in the finality of death and possibility of hell.
What is the other possibility?

Instead of an embalmer, what about a myrrh seller? Surely someone did that!

Regarding the high priest issue, which one do the DSS and Josephus say Paul could not have gone to?

Yes, I think God allows minor errors in extant Scriptures, and even if every word were dictated, we fallible folks
could not be absolutely certain of that, so we must be content to walk by faith.

 

[rewriter]

I doubt we can calculate degree of probability regarding God's existence and the Gospel's truth,
but if you say there is a chance of resurrection to heaven, I will take that over belief in the finality of death and possibility of hell.
What is the other possibility?

Instead of an embalmer, what about a myrrh seller? Surely someone did that!

Regarding the high priest issue, which one do the DSS and Josephus say Paul could not have gone to?

Yes, I think God allows minor errors in extant Scriptures, and even if every word were dictated, we fallible folks
could not be absolutely certain of that, so we must be content to walk by faith.

Myrrh merchant, yes such would exist, they were called traders and brought in various exotic items, but they did not remain in Jerusalem as merchants, rather they came in with their loads, sold what they could and departed for their next destination. Bringing in 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes would be highly unusual unless they were bringing such quantities in response to a specific order.

As for which high priest Paul would have gone to, likely given the nature of Acts, the implication would be the "official" high priest, but Paul's declared commitment to the law would suggest a preference to the unofficial one, as would his implied sequence of events in 1 Corinthians 15. But that would also imply that Paul was not a persecutor of Christians at the time he saw the risen Christ but had rejected his persecution and had become a believer and allowed confirmation. The only high priest that Paul could not have gone to without a lot of undisclosed travel would be the one in Egypt, the one referenced by the DSS and the Talmud.

 

[Blue155]

True, but assuming the suspect was a 50-minute drive away from the scene of the crime an hour before and a 55-minute drive away an hour later, don't you think it would be a reasonable question to ask if he had access to a car during that time? Remember, people with a verifiable alibi, well away from the scene of the crime, for the time of a crime, have been convicted for the crime.

And I can give you multiple examples of "possible" solutions to events that people do not want to have had occur. The problem being that the situations I would describe, and the solutions that are widely disseminated and accepted, accomplish their tasks by distorting the event, such as leaving out or changing details to fit the desired narrative.

Mark and John both show signs of editing would you care to explain how that point does not raise questions? Acts differs with Paul's claimed timeline, perhaps you can explain that also. One point I often hear from Christians but is not directly involved with this specific discussion requires one of three books in the New Testament to be in error, there are three ways to make two of the three correct, but never all three, but those who make the claim will twist themselves into pretzels to avoid admitting that.

I point out issues that biblical scholars (seminary NT profs) find baffling, yet you and some other "knowledgeable" people in here can easily resolve. I wonder how your easy solutions cannot be found by these experts.

The point is that not every tiny question has an answer in front of us, or that there aren’t details we don’t know. The point is that none of these questions, even if unanswered, create a logical or physical impossibility for the event itself. Asking whether someone had a car or how someone traveled is a ‘how’ question. It doesn’t address whether the event actually happened.

Even if historical documents show slight differences, or if scholars debate timelines or editorial decisions, that does not disprove the core event. One plausible solution shows the event was possible. Not a single existence of the alleged “minor discrepancies or editing” in the Gospels automatically make the accounts false, as every historical document has variations, yet those variations or “editing” doesn’t make the case false.

In other words, the writings stands unless someone can show a contradiction that makes it impossible to resolve. When it comes to a core evidential objection, speculations, questions, or differences in timelines do not meet that standard. They are interesting, but they do not negate the truth.

As long as the event is possible and not logically or physically impossible, timeline differences are not sufficient evidence to reject the event.

The ‘how’ or ‘when’ may vary, but that doesn’t change the ‘did.’

Just like two witnesses to a car accident might give slightly different accounts of what time the crash happened or which way the car turned, the fact that the accident occurred remains unchanged. Differences in timelines or methods do not undo the reality of the event itself.

 

[Blue155]

Just because someone asks “how?” doesn’t negate the fact that the event happened. Plausible solutions exist. Asking “how?” is fine, but it does not undermine the reality of the event itself. Historical events are judged based on all the evidence, including multiple eyewitnesses, documents, and context. Unless an alibi directly proves impossibility, it is not a disqualifying factor for the event itself.

Providing one plausible explanation that does not contradict the core event is sufficient to show no contradiction exists. Differences in minor details do not distort the reality of the event. They only reflect how human observers record it. Historical writing often involves perspective, emphasis, or style differences, but the central fact remains. Timelines can be expressed differently without creating a logical contradiction.

The “twisting” accusation is rhetorical, not evidence. Historical texts’ minor differences do not change the essential facts. These differences are not evidence of fabrication. The fact that some scholars are baffled does not make the event false. Scholars often debate interpretation, minor chronology, or style.

Easy solutions exist because the events stands regardless of minor unresolved questions.

 

[Blue155]

I doubt we can calculate degree of probability regarding God's existence and the Gospel's truth,
but if you say there is a chance of resurrection to heaven, I will take that over belief in the finality of death and possibility of hell.
What is the other possibility?

Instead of an embalmer, what about a myrrh seller? Surely someone did that!

Regarding the high priest issue, which one do the DSS and Josephus say Paul could not have gone to?

Yes, I think God allows minor errors in extant Scriptures, and even if every word were dictated, we fallible folks
could not be absolutely certain of that, so we must be content to walk by faith.

No amount of evidence or solutions will convince the one who does not want to be convinced.

 

[rewriter]

Just because someone asks “how?” doesn’t negate the fact that the event happened. Plausible solutions exist. Asking “how?” is fine, but it does not undermine the reality of the event itself. Historical events are judged based on all the evidence, including multiple eyewitnesses, documents, and context. Unless an alibi directly proves impossibility, it is not a disqualifying factor for the event itself.

Providing one plausible explanation that does not contradict the core event is sufficient to show no contradiction exists. Differences in minor details do not distort the reality of the event. They only reflect how human observers record it. Historical writing often involves perspective, emphasis, or style differences, but the central fact remains. Timelines can be expressed differently without creating a logical contradiction.

The “twisting” accusation is rhetorical, not evidence. Historical texts’ minor differences do not change the essential facts. These differences are not evidence of fabrication. The fact that some scholars are baffled does not make the event false. Scholars often debate interpretation, minor chronology, or style.

Easy solutions exist because the events stands regardless of minor unresolved questions.

And carefully crafted deliberately false written accounts can withstand scrutiny, especially if they are considered truthful and thus any plausible explanation that allows them to be preserved is considered acceptable. Archeological evidence and ignored historic writings, as well as undisputed but potentially related events all can give reason to doubt the official records of any historic event. I am aware of written records from 160-165 years ago that directly contradict the official accounts of a very specific event. Those who support the official version find any number of reasons to discount the unofficial records, even though the unofficial records are better supported.

If my interpretation is correct, the early church had excellent reason to bury the truth, but in burying the truth, other accepted aspects are left without good explanation. For example, and not for extended discussion as far as I am concerned, did Paul write Ephesians or not, and if he did, why does it sound so much different, especially in eschatology and ecclesiology, than his other epistles? If not, why does it seem to reference current events in Anatolia during a specific time period in Paul's life? Or why did Nero persecute Christians in 64 and why was there reported great support for his actions? Maybe you would like to deal with the issue of women's hair in Corinthians and note that prostitution is dealt with in a different part of the epistle before you resort to that explanation. Or how about 2 Timothy 3:16 where Paul invents a word instead of using the word that others used to describe how scripture came to be recorded. But as I said, those queries are not to renew or expand this specific discussion, just queries to possibly challenge your confidence that the answers are simple and to your liking. None of the answers I have found are to my liking, but they do fit without twisting my mind into a pretzel shape.

 

[Blue155]

And carefully crafted deliberately false written accounts can withstand scrutiny, especially if they are considered truthful and thus any plausible explanation that allows them to be preserved is considered acceptable. Archeological evidence and ignored historic writings, as well as undisputed but potentially related events all can give reason to doubt the official records of any historic event. I am aware of written records from 160-165 years ago that directly contradict the official accounts of a very specific event. Those who support the official version find any number of reasons to discount the unofficial records, even though the unofficial records are better supported.

If my interpretation is correct, the early church had excellent reason to bury the truth, but in burying the truth, other accepted aspects are left without good explanation. For example, and not for extended discussion as far as I am concerned, did Paul write Ephesians or not, and if he did, why does it sound so much different, especially in eschatology and ecclesiology, than his other epistles? If not, why does it seem to reference current events in Anatolia during a specific time period in Paul's life? Or why did Nero persecute Christians in 64 and why was there reported great support for his actions? Maybe you would like to deal with the issue of women's hair in Corinthians and note that prostitution is dealt with in a different part of the epistle before you resort to that explanation. Or how about 2 Timothy 3:16 where Paul invents a word instead of using the word that others used to describe how scripture came to be recorded. But as I said, those queries are not to renew or expand this specific discussion, just queries to possibly challenge your confidence that the answers are simple and to your liking. None of the answers I have found are to my liking, but they do fit without twisting my mind into a pretzel shape.

You say the answers are not to your liking, but you cannot claim or say that there are no answers. There are answers and you reject them because they aren’t to your liking. However, that is the key distinction. Something being unsatisfying doesn’t make it impossible or false.

 

[Blue155]

An answer’s validity isn’t determined by whether it pleases you. Evidence stands on its own merits, not on your preferences. If you require it to be ‘to your liking’ to accept it, you’ve already disqualified yourself as a fair evaluator.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Please do not repeat yourself. I asked for post #s where I missed your Scripture, but I see none. I apologize for trying to agree with you, and I ask you to explain why you disagree with the creed I shared point by point
and verse by verse at your pace as time allows.

See my posts here, and here (which includes verses).

I have never used ChatGPT, I do not intend to do so now, and I apologize for echoing your slander at the point of recommending it.

When Google first launched, many people resisted using it. Critics complained it was too simple: just a blank search page with no content, unlike other search engines of the time. Similarly, early internet adoption faced resistance from people citing the same concerns now raised against AI: unfamiliarity, uncertainty, and distrust of new technology.

Yet like search engines and the internet before it, AI is simply a tool, one that requires the same critical thinking we should apply to any information source. AI can make errors, which is why using multiple AI platforms (like Perplexity.ai) and verifying sources is essential. But this standard should already apply to traditional Google searches too. Not all articles are truthful, and not all sources are unbiased, regardless of how you find them.

My own experience illustrates AI's practical value. I've used ChatGPT to upload a photo of my shaving blades and identify which trims the least from my goatee. When I needed replacement grill plates but didn't know which size to order, it analyzed a photo of the small print on my grill's back panel and directed me to the correct product on Amazon. During a vacation, my wife and I encountered an unlabeled stacked washer-dryer unit with 4 to 5 compartments. A photo helped ChatGPT identify which compartment was for detergent, and it worked. For Bible study, ChatGPT helps me locate hard-to-find verses in the KJV and provides word-by-word Greek analysis from Beza's printed edition, which I can verify against BlueLetter.

AI isn't replacing human judgment. It's augmenting it, just like every transformative tool before it.

I refuse to see nothing, and considering other reasonable translations is the mark of objectivity.
I dare say detectives use the same method rather than assume the pattern shown by circumstancial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence? Circumstantial in my view would not be overwhelming repeat patterns of corruptions. That goes beyond coincidence, my friend. Then again, you would have to maybe read my free PDFs several times for you to see what I am talking about here.

I like the idea of God preserving His word in both 1600s English and 21st century English, which I thought you referred to as illumination.

Like any biblical doctrine, I believe that God reveals the truth of that doctrine by His spirit. This would be an illumination or quite revelation from God. Its like realizing that the Bible alone is our final word of authority for all matters of faith and practice. Only God can reveal such a truth to a person.

I have studied GW for so many years that I have harmonized a lot of it, and I am continuing to be the lead learner on CC,
which is why I have been considering your comparison of the KJV with the 1984 NIV. I have never done that before.

Big ways to learn in this area is in 3 places.

Deeply familiarize yourself with:

#1. My two free PDFs at www.affectionsabove.com:​

(a) King James Bible vs. Modern Bibles; 77 Changed Doctrines.​

(b) KJV vs. Modern Bibles: A Side-by-Side Doctrinal and Textual Comparison​

​

#2. KJVCompare.com (Brandon Peterson's site)​

​

#3. Nick Sayers Revolution Debates YouTube Channel (Live Streams).​

https://www.youtube.com/@NickSayersRevolution/streams​

Nick is a street preacher in Australia and he has been talking about textual issues for a very long time. His testimony in coming to Christ is very powerful. I learned a lot from Nick's channel, even though I may not agree with everything he says or believes. His live stream videos are sometimes really long and they can go on for about 4 hours sometimes. If it is a stream I am interested in, and I am limited on time, I will watch in parts throughout the week or so. But if you really want to know the textual issues, he is probably the most entertaining and informative person on the topic right now on YouTube.

Of course we should not view GW as a shape shifter text where you can "Pick and Choose Your Own Adventure", but neither should we view it as a rigid structure ossified in one effectively dictated version. The fact that this belief is mainstream Christianity should give you pause for humble reflection about papal temptations.

There are only two options today. Believe there is a settled text, which is the TR / KJV believer position, or you believe in a shape shifter text that never stops shape shifting or changing. Your Bible that you get to pick and choose readings in that exist only in your mind will differ from the other believer who holds to the same belief as you do. You will both disagree on what should be in or out of the Bible and that's not the impression we get when we hear Jesus and His followers refer to Scripture. This is why the "No Settled Text" belief is nonsense and highly illogical. You would not buy a house based on multiple conflicting contracts. It doesn't make any sense.

Variant versions and various moral issues were not relevant for Jesus and His disciples, so we must consider how what they taught applies to modern situations. My view is only outside what you say, which I began by respecting, but I always try to verify.

Chapter and verse. See, you are just going off your own thinking here. How do you know there was not any competing corrupted texts at the time? In fact, Paul said that there were those who had been corrupting the Word of God.

Yet, your modern Bibles say it was about peddling, or selling. See! Your Modern Bible is hiding what has actually happened. God's word had been corrupted (i.e., there was a parallel corrupted version in existence along with the pure and correct version).

I thought "my PDF 77 changed doctrines at www.affectionsabove.com. " was your site and so my list of ten comparisons was discussing your work. ???

This is my PDF and my site. You are free to talk about them.
It does not mean I will engage with you in all of them.



.....

 

[rewriter]

You say the answers are not to your liking, but you cannot claim or say that there are no answers. There are answers and you reject them because they aren’t to your liking. However, that is the key distinction. Something being unsatisfying doesn’t make it impossible or false.

Oh, I fully agree that my liking is not a determining factor in the truth or falsity of any answer, but then neither is yours. What I look for is how well and consistently answers fit across the board. If you need say 5 assumptions to deal with 5 different questions as opposed to 1 assumption that allows all 5 to be answered, I will take the 1 as preferable, that is the fewest possible assumptions (Occam's razor). You appear to prefer as many as possible.

I can answer all the questions I posed with consistency would you dare try?

 

[Blue155]

Oh, I fully agree that my liking is not a determining factor in the truth or falsity of any answer, but then neither is yours. What I look for is how well and consistently answers fit across the board. If you need say 5 assumptions to deal with 5 different questions as opposed to 1 assumption that allows all 5 to be answered, I will take the 1 as preferable, that is the fewest possible assumptions (Occam's razor). You appear to prefer as many as possible.

I can answer all the questions I posed with consistency would you dare try?

Occam’s razor is not a truth test. Preferring explanations that are coherent and non-contradictory is. Different historical questions often have different explanations. Providing a plausible explanation that does not contradict the core event is sufficient to show there is no contradiction. Difficulty, complexity, or dissatisfaction does not equal impossibility or falsity. History is not disproved by complexity. It is disproved only by contradiction, impossibility, or contrary evidence that cannot be given a reasonable explanation to an event in question.

A complex explanation can be true. A simple explanation can be false.

 

[GWH]

Myrrh merchant, yes such would exist, they were called traders and brought in various exotic items, but they did not remain in Jerusalem as merchants, rather they came in with their loads, sold what they could and departed for their next destination. Bringing in 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes would be highly unusual unless they were bringing such quantities in response to a specific order.

As for which high priest Paul would have gone to, likely given the nature of Acts, the implication would be the "official" high priest, but Paul's declared commitment to the law would suggest a preference to the unofficial one, as would his implied sequence of events in 1 Corinthians 15. But that would also imply that Paul was not a persecutor of Christians at the time he saw the risen Christ but had rejected his persecution and had become a believer and allowed confirmation. The only high priest that Paul could not have gone to without a lot of undisclosed travel would be the one in Egypt, the one referenced by the DSS and the Talmud.

Okay, and here are some other grains of sand or discrepancies in GW along with possible resolutions:

Jam. 2:24 justified by faith with works faith produces fruit (v. 14-19)
Rom. 3:28 justified by faith apart from law faith is followed by fruit (Gal. 5:6, Eph. 2:10)

Luke 23:46 last words were “Father, into…” Jesus said both, but witnesses heard or remembered
John 19:30 last words were “It is finished.” only one.

Mark 10:46 a blind man There were two, but the witness in Mark saw or
Matt. 20:30 two blind men remembered only one.

2Sam. 24:1 Lord incited David God allowed Satan to incite David.
1Chron. 21:1 Satan incited David

Gen. 2:17 die on day sin is committed “die” refers to spiritual death or separation from God
Gen. 5:5 lived 930 years before dying

Gen. 20:11-12 Sarah is Abraham’s half sister law was not given until time of Moses
Lev. 20:17 brother should not marry sister

John 20:22 disciples received the Holy Spirit received is not necessarily filling
Acts 2:1-4 disciples were filled by the H.S.

Matt. 5:44 love your enemies the latter speaks of not being pleased
Matt. 7:1 the Lord hated Esau

2Chr. 36:22-23 identical with Ezra 1:1-3a the copier needed coffee
Ezra 1:1-3a identical with 2Chr. 36:22-23

 

[GWH]

And carefully crafted deliberately false written accounts can withstand scrutiny, especially if they are considered truthful and thus any plausible explanation that allows them to be preserved is considered acceptable. Archeological evidence and ignored historic writings, as well as undisputed but potentially related events all can give reason to doubt the official records of any historic event. I am aware of written records from 160-165 years ago that directly contradict the official accounts of a very specific event. Those who support the official version find any number of reasons to discount the unofficial records, even though the unofficial records are better supported.

If my interpretation is correct, the early church had excellent reason to bury the truth, but in burying the truth, other accepted aspects are left without good explanation. For example, and not for extended discussion as far as I am concerned, did Paul write Ephesians or not, and if he did, why does it sound so much different, especially in eschatology and ecclesiology, than his other epistles? If not, why does it seem to reference current events in Anatolia during a specific time period in Paul's life? Or why did Nero persecute Christians in 64 and why was there reported great support for his actions? Maybe you would like to deal with the issue of women's hair in Corinthians and note that prostitution is dealt with in a different part of the epistle before you resort to that explanation. Or how about 2 Timothy 3:16 where Paul invents a word instead of using the word that others used to describe how scripture came to be recorded. But as I said, those queries are not to renew or expand this specific discussion, just queries to possibly challenge your confidence that the answers are simple and to your liking. None of the answers I have found are to my liking, but they do fit without twisting my mind into a pretzel shape.

Paul's Ephesians has much that is similar to Colossians. Paul invents, creates, reveals.
Keep in mind that Paul was a spiritual giant or genius who has dominated Christian history;
we are mere mortals feeding on his orts, like it or not.