Hi Kyle. Thanks for your response.

The conversation between ShirleyM and myself was obviously only intended to be a brief and private exchange, which was therefore unlikely to contain any reason- or evidence-based objections to the arguments and evidence you presented. That would have required fuller Medium articles.

I don't dispute that you constantly examine and deal with views outside of your beliefs. However, as you yourself admit, you do come up with conclusions which go against the consensus view of modern scholarship, which is what one might expect from an 'apologist'.

Your article on Matthew's Gospel by the way is well argued, but in my view not completely convincing. You say that “if all the various accounts agree with each other, it's highly unlikely that anyone is pushing propaganda”. One can say exactly the opposite. A position is agreed as the truth, and then all those who agree push that agenda – we can see many examples in the modern news media. Irenaeus and Eusebius, for example, are considered unreliable and biased by modern scholarship. They write significantly later than the actual events. Do they have actual evidence for what they are saying, or are they merely repeating a story that has been handed down?

It's also unlikely, as you claim, that Paul is referencing the mention of Jonah in Matthew. This may be an example of your using the evidence to fit with your beliefs.

Anyway, such debates are always interesting, and you should continue to engage in them.

Best wishes.