A Response to Gary the Atheist

A guy named Gary posted some comments in one of my blogs [HERE]. He left a link to his own blog HERE. I responded to him both in my original blog and his. Then he responded back at his blog. The following is my response to his response. You can read his original comments at his blog. When I quote him below, I'll put his comments in blue, in quote text and within two slashes like //this//.

Here's my response to Gary.

I don't have the time to get into a detailed debate. But I'll make some brief comments. First off, while I believe in the use of evidences for Christianity like Christians who employ Evidentialist apologetics and Classical apologetics [etc.], I'm a presuppositionalist. So my epistemology is different than most other Christian apologists. I take the Bible to be self-attesting and self-authenticating. Nevertheless, I believe there are external and internal evidences that support or provide additional confirmatory evidence for the truth of the Bible. So, I don't think the truth of Christianity or its acceptability is ultimately dependent on external evidence. 

I'll start off by responding to your Gish Galloping list of objections. It's easier to list objections than to provide answers by the very fact that objections can be stated more succinctly than answers which require a full explanation to adequately address the objections.

//I left Christianity after evaluating the many inconsistencies and false claims in the Bible, not just because of a couple of books by Bart Ehrman. Some of these inconsistencies and false claims are:

–the lack of archaeological evidence for the Exodus, an event Jesus believed was historical.//

Not all archaeologists are Egyptologists [i.e. specialize in ancient Egypt]. According to archaeologist James Hoffmeier's informal survey, while it's true that most archaeologists reject the historicity of the Exodus, from his finite inductive study, most Egyptologists either believe or suspect that the Exodus occurred. See this link:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170930132901/https://faithfulphilosophy.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/vast-majority-of-egyptologists-believe-the-exodus-happened/

Dr. David A. Falk is an Egyptologist who believe in a literal Exodus. See his website: http://www.egyptandthebible.com/​

Also check out Dr. Falk's YouTube channel where he defends a literal Exodus:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF1f7vTqonOIwaGU6DwTvjg

While Falk thinks there are weaknesses in Titus Kennedy's works, I recommend checking out his book and videos as well. Archaeologist James Hoffmeier's books and videos are a bit dated and have partially be refuted, but they are good introductory resources.

//–the evolving concept of an afterlife in the OT.//

That's not problematic given Jewish or Christian theism. Since there's the Biblical concept of progressive revelation whereby God grants more and more information about spiritual matters down through Redemptive History. It's not one large data dump. That progression is seen even within the the Old Testament. And even within the first five books [i.e. the Torah/Penteteuch]. Also, "evolving" in what way? The Old Testament taught a conscious afterlife in Sheol and hinted at a more blessed condition for the righteous than for the unrighteous. That basic outline is completely consistent and compatible with the New Testament's understanding of the afterlife. While it has some flaws [as Annihilationists point out], I recommend the general arguments presented by Robert Morey in his book "Death and the Afterlife." For example, he points out how Gen. 35:18 says regarding Rachel "And as her soul was departing (for she was dying)." Implying an immaterial aspect to Rachel and its departure. Sure, the Hebrew word "soul" used could sometimes be translated "life," but in this case it could also [more?] plausibly be translated as "soul." Similar to how in 1 Ki 17:21 the "soul" [or "life"] came back INTO the child's body. Or how Jacob said in Gen. 37:35, "No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning." Implying Jacob believed in a conscious afterlife in Sheol where he would be reunited with his son Joseph.

While a bit dated, here's a public domain link to Messianic Jewish scholar Alfred Edersheim's Appendix 19 in his famous book, "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah." He shows how the New Testament didn't invent the Christian afterlife out of thin air, but was partly built upon previous 2nd Temple Jewish beliefs about the afterlife. Beliefs that themselves were built upon from the Old Testament revelation.

Appendix 19, On Eternal Punishment, According to the Rabbis and the New Testament by Edersheim
https://ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/lifetimes/lifetimes.xi.xviii.html

//–the fact that the NT authors used a Greek translation of the OT when writing their books and claiming fulfilled prophecies, a Greek translation which blatantly distorted the original Hebrew meaning in many passages.//

Since Christianity is a missionary religion, it only made sense to use a widespread Greek translation of the Old Testament that was already popular throughout the Roman Empire. There's nothing wrong with that. Does it blatantly distort the original Hebrew? Much of that claim of non-literal 1. translation, 2. interpretation and 3. application can be answered when one applies the Jewish hermeneutic that would later be called Pardes/PaRDeS that was already in use during the 1st century by 2nd Temple Jews.

See the following resources:

How the New Testament Quotes the Old Testament by Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum
http://arielb.org/archives/794

Fruchtenbaum goes into this in his AUDIO lectures series the "Jewish Life of Christ": 
https://www.deanbibleministries.org/bible-class-listing/messages/series/the-jewish-life-of-christ

//Literal Prophecy Plus Literal Fulfillment: Pshat

The first category is known as “literal prophecy plus literal fulfillment,” reflecting the rabbinic pshat, which refers to the simple meaning of the text. The example of this first category is found in Matthew 2:5 6.//

//Literal Plus Typical: Remez

The second category of quotations can be labeled “literal plus typical.” In rabbinic theology it was known are remez or “hint.” An example of this category is found in Matthew 2:15.//

//Literal Plus Application: Drash

The third category is “literal plus application,” correlating with the rabbinic drash. The example of this category is Matthew 2:17 18.//

//Summation: Sod

The fourth category is “summation” or “summary.” The meaning of sod is “secret” or “mystery” or “something unknown.” The example of the fourth category is found in Matthew 2:23.//

Pardes (Jewish exegesis) [wikipedia article]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis)

A common objection to the historicity of Jesus is that there are too many parallels to Jesus and the Old Testament. But the parallel aren't as strong as they could be or would be if the Gospel writers were making it all up and fabricating it whole cloth. Another related objection is that passages in the Old Testament are eisegetically [rather than exegetically] pressed and forced to refer to Jesus. But if the Gospel authors were making it up, they would have made the parallels and fulfillments fit better if they used JUST A LITTLE bit more imagination. The fact that the Gospels don't do that fits better with the Gospel authors being constrained by the actual historical facts of Jesus rather than spinning fake tales. See the following video:

Is the Story of Jesus Stolen From the Old Testament?
https://youtu.be/AgHfZaPNddo

Moreover, the fulfillments are often more literal than is usually realized at first glance. See the MANY book recommendations in the 2nd half of the blog linked below that argue for the genuine messiahship of Jesus:

HERE https://misclane.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-prophecies-of-old-testament.html

It's often been said by non-Messianic Jews that no great rabbis believed Jesus was the Messiah. That's factually false. Many great rabbis have. Some of them were even very learned gedolim. See the following articles:

Rabbis Who Thought For Themselves Part ONE
http://www.messianicjudaism.me/yinon/2011/11/02/rabbis-who-thought-for-themselves/

Rabbis Who Thought For Themselves Part TWO
http://www.messianicjudaism.me/yinon/2011/12/01/rabbis-who-thought-for-themselves-part-ii/

//–the alleged OT prophecies about Jesus are all disputed. Jewish Bible scholars can provide good arguments that the passages in question are not talking about Jesus.//

Again, see the links I provided above. Including the MANY book recommendations of I linked to in the blog above.

[32 Youtube Videos]
Michael L. Brown's introductory responses to Jewish Objection to Jesus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7oY5wh5KEc&list=PLOSesbHxQr2Ta7WjFBut_bjLRWwMSYepK&index=2

It's interesting that many Jewish counter-Missionaries don't want to debate Michael L. Brown. For example, rabbi Tovia Singer has been avoiding debating Brown again [a 3rd time] for decades. Here's a video where Brown addresses Singer's refusal to debate him and Singer's inaccurate statements:

Dr. Brown Responds to Rabbi Tovia Singer
https://youtu.be/U5-TJPz6Y94

//–the fact that two and maybe three of the Gospel authors massively plagiarized the first.//

That Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source is not plagiarism. They may have even used the hypothetical Q [and other possible sources]. There's nothing wrong with doing that. Mark provided an outline [or skeleton] that the authors of Matthew and Luke decided to build and expand upon [by adding more "flesh"]. 

//–the inconsistency of the accounts of the location of Jesus’ appearances to his male disciples.//

I'm assuming you're referring to how Matt. 28:10 and Mark 16:7 say Jesus was to meet the disciples in Galilee. While Luke changes that in Luke 24:6, and has the disciples encountering Jesus in Jerusalem [similar to John]. See Mike Licona's book, "Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?" Licona rightly points out that the Gospel authors used literary conventions and literary/compositional devices that were common at the time, were expected to be used and not considered deceptive or lying. I think Licona overuses them in his interpretation of the Gospels, but there is still some truth to it. For example, compression, simplification, transferal, displacement, conflation.

See this video lectures by Licona:

"Why are there differences in the gospels?" - Mike Licona
https://youtu.be/xtemSTrkogE

Also, given the 40 days between Jesus' resurrection and ascension, there would have been plenty of time for Jesus to initially visit some inner (smaller) group of disciples in Jerusalem, and then have a larger meeting in Galilee in the middle of the 40 days for disciples to travel that far to Galilee. Then a final meeting again in Jerusalem. Remember that 40 days is more than a month and a full week. 

//–not one single non-Christian recorded the (alleged) fantastical feats of Jesus. Jesus allegedly performed more and greater miracles than all of the OT prophets combined yet only four Christian authors recorded these events. This is strong evidence these events never happened. They are theological/literary embellishments, a common feature in ancient literature.//

This is easily answered. See for example this EXCELLENT video by InspiringPhilosophy/Michael Jones:

Refuting Biblical Arguments from Silence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwTDuNFAHng&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY&index=8

In the video above, he gives these examples:

The eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD is one of the biggest and most devastating disasters in the ancient Roman Empire. It would have been seen by about 1/4 million people. Two cities were destroyed in the eruption. The death toll was probably between 16,000 to 60,000 people. Yet there is only surviving reference to the eruption, and it isn't even contemporary. It was written 30 years after. 

There is no Carthaginian or contemporary sources of Hannibal. No sources for Alexander the Great until 350 years later. Marco Polo never mentions the Great Wall of China. President Ulysses S. Grant's diary doesn't mention the Emancipation Proclamation.

Herod Archelaus' slaughtering several Jews in the temple, cancelling Passover celebration. It would have affected hundreds of thousands of people. Yet only Josephus, ONE person, records this event that has survived to the present.

//–the fact that a significant percentage of NT scholars doubt the eyewitness/associate of eyewitness authorship of the Gospels//

Even assuming that none of the Gospels were written by an eyewitness, eyewitness testimony isn't the only POSSIBLE source of reliable history. That's a non-sequitur. According to your blog, you're aware of books like “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” by Richard Bauckham. So, you know that there are books that argue for the general reliability of the Gospels by various authors. I'm sure you're aware of Craig Keener's books on the topic. Mike Licona says that Bart Ehrman was once called a "workaholic" and Bart responded, "Workaholic? No, Craig Keener, HE'S a workaholic!". Licona said that here: https://youtu.be/_eCe4GyNlr0?t=424

Moreover, besides the Gospels, there's Paul writings from which we can glean historical nuggets regarding the early Christians' beliefs and practices. The author of Luke/Acts has been shown to be a first rate historian. See the McGrews on this topic.

See these resources:

The Historical Jesus DID Exist - Bart Ehrman
https://youtu.be/43mDuIN5-ww

The Reliability of the New Testament (External Evidence)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIdCRanZZyw&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY&index=5

Extrabiblical Evidence for the Veracity of the Gospel History by Jonathan McLatchie
https://jonathanmclatchie.com/extrabiblical-evidence-for-the-veracity-of-the-gospel-history/

See many of Tim McGrew's YouTube videos on the historical reliability of the Gospels. 

For example here: https://youtu.be/04ZV8bVQhWg

//–Eyewitness accounts of people seeing a walking/talking resurrected Jesus is the best evidence Christians have for the central claim of their holy book—the resurrection of Jesus—but these alleged eyewitness accounts are disputed. Disputed eyewitness accounts for an event which allegedly happened 20 centuries ago is NOT good evidence.//

That begs the question [petitio principii/circular reasoning] that the Bible isn't self-attesting and self-authenticating and that there is no sensus divinitatis and the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit to the truths of the Gospel. I deny that non-Christians can make any sense of knowledge given their consistent use of their non-Christian worldviews and presuppositions. For example, let's deal with atheistic worldviews. Not all atheists are materialists, but many/most are. Because of that, they have a hard time, if not are unable to account for things like the famous and enduring epistemological and metaphysical problems of induction; cannot overcome the problem of Eliminative Materialism and of Mereological Nihilism; cannot overcome the Hard Problem of consciousness; or even rationally assert atheism given the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism [the famous EAAN]. I could go on. Those are just some of the philosophical problems in atheism. While Christianity as a worldview can provide for the preconditions of intelligibility in a consistent way. It has greater explanatory scope, explanatory power etc.

Eliminative Materialism, for example, holds that human consciousness, thoughts, desires, beliefs, feelings, deliberations, decisions, intentionality, ratiocinations and acts of will aren't real. Mereological Nihilism states there are no parts that make up wholes. In which case, there are no human beings made up of cells. There are only subatomic particles. I'll limit my objections to these. I don't want to Gish Gallop too much, myself.

Moreover, the miracle claims didn't stop at the 1st century. See the following books for starters:

Read Craig Keener's two volume Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts [2011]

Craig Keener's "Miracles Today: The Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World" [2021] which has 70% more information than the previous book.

Rex Gardner's Healing Miracles: A Doctor Investigates, 

and the appendices in Robert Larmer's The Legitimacy of Miracle 

as well as Larmer's book Dialogues on Miracle

See also Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland's book on modern miracles, "A Simple Guide to Experience Miracles: Instruction and Inspiration for Living Supernaturally in Christ."

Then there are scientific books that support a cosmic designer. For example:

Stephen C. Meyer's EXCELLENT BOOKS 1. Signature in the Cell; 2. Darwin's Doubt; 3. The Return of the God Hypothesis [newly released]

The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards [some channels have the video version]

Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed by Douglas Axe

Agnostic Michael Denton's various EXCELLENT books like:

Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (2016) [a second sequel to his 1985 Evolution: A Theory in Crisis]

Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe [first sequel]

The Miracles of the Cell

Children of Light: The Astonishing Properties of Sunlight That Make Us Possible

The Wonder of Water: Water's Profound Fitness for Life on Earth and Mankind

Fire-Maker: How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet 

Various books by Fazale Rana on biology like 1. The Cell's Design; 2. Origins of Life; 

Various books by Hugh Ross on scientific evidences for a Creator. Though, the way he argues for things are a bit off and poorly reasoned. But the data points are very suggestive. For example:

Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home by Hugh Ross

Why the Universe Is the Way It Is by Hugh Ross

Who Was Adam? by Rana and Ross [revised and updated edition]

The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry by S. Joshua Swamidass

Check out atheist philosophers' books about the ramifications of atheism like atheist philosopher's book Thomas Nagel's "Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False"

And atheist philosopher's book Alex Rosenberg's The Atheist's Guide to Reality.

Also, James N. Anderson's book review of Rosenberg's book here:
https://www.proginosko.com/2013/08/the-atheists-guide-to-reality/

//How does anyone know what Jesus said at his trial before the Sanhedrin? The Gospel authors do not indicate that his disciples were present. So who recorded this event? Who carefully dictated Jesus’ choice of words and passed it on to the anonymous author of Mark?? //

The book of Acts states that many Jews converted to Christianity after Christ's resurrection. Why assume that none of the converts were among the Sanhedrin? Why assume that Jesus' words in the Gospels need to always be ipsissima verba [precise/the very words] and not sometimes ipsissima vox [very voice]? Jesus didn't always talk/preach in Greek, so we can't always have the very words of Jesus.

Did Jesus Speak Multiple Languages? See my blogpost here:
https://quotesandreferences.blogspot.com/2018/03/did-jesus-speak-multiple-languages.html

//This brings up another important issue which contributed to my decision to abandon Christianity: Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions! //

We all have assumptions and presuppositions. We all have a worldview by which we interpret the world. We're all presuppositionalists. Some just don't know it and aren't consistent with it and their worldview. The question is which worldview does better/best at providing for the preconditions of intelligibility and human experience in a way that's internally consistent and coherent. For my own self, I've found Christianity to do it MUCH MUCH MUCH better than any other worldview I've encountered. Including various atheistic worldviews.

For example, many atheists believe in science to the point of [unknowingly] holding to scientism. Some [not all] atheists for example, claim that you can only know things through the methods of science. But that claim is not itself something that you can know through the methods of science. It's self-refuting like the statement, "There are no sentences longer than three words."

Science has presuppositions or axioms which cannot themselves be proven scientifically but must be assumed [almost like "faith"] in order for science to be done [i.e. to even begin]. Some of those presuppositions include:

Here is a list of some of the presuppositions of science: 

(1) the existence of a theory-independent, external world; 

(2) the orderly nature of the external world; 

(3) the knowability of the external world; 

(4) the existence of truth; 

(5) the laws of logic; 

(6) the [general] reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers/identifiers and as a source of justified true beliefs in our intellectual environment; 

(7) the adequacy of language to describe the world; 

( 8 ) the existence of values used in science (e.g., "test theories fairly and report test results honestly"); 

(9) the [presumed] uniformity of nature and [propriety of the use of the principle of] induction; 

(10) causation

(11) the existence (or at least usefulness) of numbers. Given atheism, it's a strange "Happy Coincidence" that nature is so very much structured on mathematics that physicists can make predictions about the universe which are later confirmed empirically. Whereas, given the existence of God it makes perfect sense that God would create the physical world mathematically, and intellectually/rationally accessible.

These assumptions and the subscription to them make sense in [Christian] theism, but the various atheistic worldviews have difficulty [metaphysically] grounding such axioms or [epistemologically] justifying belief in them. Most atheists live by "faith" (so to speak) when they operate with these working/operating assumptions.

//Christian assume that the conversation between Jesus and the high priest is historical but it is entirely possible that it is a theological invention of the author.//

No, Christians don't necessarily have to merely assume that. There are historical arguments that can be mustered to support some of the events in the New Testament even given the unjustified historical methods of some non-Christian worldviews. Moreover, your hypothetical statement can be reversed. "[B]ut it is entirely possible that... [the account is generally reliable historically]". Possibilities doesn't prove probabilities. Note that many atheists scholars, Jewish scholars and liberal "Christian" scholars grant key aspects of the Gospel story given their use of historical procedures.

Notice these quotes:

"One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on order of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate."- Bart Ehrman [agnostic scholar]

"Jesus' death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable..." - Gerd Lüdemann [Atheist scholar]

Non-Messianic Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide said Jesus' death by crucifixion is "historically certain". Moreover, based on the historical evidence, Lapide even believed that Jesus really did rise from the death by God's power, but didn't believe he was the Messiah for the Jews, but for the Gentiles.

"The single most solid fact about Jesus' life is his death: he was executed by the Roman prefect Pilate, on or around Passover, in the manner Rome reserved particularly for Roman insurrectionists, namely, crucifixion." - Paula Fredriksen [a scholar converted to Judaism, who specializes in historical Jesus studies]

"The most certain fact about the historical Jesus is his execution as a political rebel."- Marcus Borg [Liberal scholar]

The crucifixion of Jesus is recognized even by the Jesus Seminar as "one indisputable fact." [Robert Funk, Jesus Seminar videotape]

I recommend again that you watch William Lane Craig's explanation of the historical "Criteria of Authenticity" lecture and how he demonstrates Bart Ehrman often misunderstand, misapplies and conflates some of those criteria.

William Lane Craig Describing Various Criteria of Authenticity and How Bart Ehrman Incorrectly Defines and Applies Them:
IN SIX SHORT VIDEOS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zANl-OcPnfI&list=PLshImU6jwhvz77QRcIo1HkBnZLIW0pMT1

//And your interpretation that Jesus used the Greek words for “I am” is preposterous. Do you really believe that Jesus and the high priest were speaking to each other in Greek? Highly unlikely. //

Two of Jesus' Apostles had Greek names [Andrew and Philip]. Matthew was a tax collector for the Romans and who certainly knew Greek. Four were fishermen who sold fish [one of whom was Andrew]. The name Philip became a popular Greek name because of Philip II of Macedon the father of Alexander the Great. Is it unlikely that the Apostles and Jesus would have known how to speak Koine Greek? Jesus was a PREACHER. Jesus HAND PICKED His Apostles to preach. The word "apostle" itself means "SENT [one]." Sent to do what? Preach. Doesn't it seem reasonable that Jesus would choose people who were also Greek speakers? We call it "Koine" Greek because it was "common." It was the "lingua franca" of the time, like English is the universal language of commerce in our own day and age. As a possible carpenter, is it difficult to think Jesus spoke Koine? 

You'll ask, "How about at His trial?" It's common in multi-lingual cultures and societies for people to move back and fourth in different languages. Even to mix them a bit. That's why, for example, people jokingly talk about "Spanglish" [a mix of Spanish and English]. I'm Filipino and we jokingly talk about "Taglish" [Tagalog and English]. So, is it unlikely that Jesus didn't switch from Aramaic and/or Hebrew to Greek and back again? I doubt it. 

You'll ask, "How about Jesus' statement in Mark 14:62?" Let's say for the sake or argument that the author of Mark is generally conveying in Greek what Jesus said in Aramaic, then we have good reason to think that at least the author of Mark was trying to convey to his readers that HE HIMSELF [the author] believed Jesus was God by the use of "ego eimi" and references to the "Son of Man." But even if Jesus didn't say what He did in Greek, the concept of the "Son of Man" could have still been uttered by Jesus. In fact, the "Son of Man" statements of Jesus in the Gospels are usually considered likely historically authentic by scholars because it passes the Criterion of Authenticity called "Dissimilarity/Discontinuity." Because the New Testament church and the early church fathers weren't in the habit of referring to Jesus as the "Son of Man." In fact, scholars have said that the phrase appears to be Jesus' favorite self-designation. That Jesus referred to Himself as the Danielic "Son of Man" [in Greek or Aramaic] makes sense of His being condemned to death for blasphemy given the divine prerogatives of the figure in Daniel 7:13-14. One who rides the clouds, and will be served in a religious way that amounts to divine worship. What other alternative hypothesis can better explain Jesus' condemnation?

//Christians read all kinds of interpretations into Jesus’ alleged statements. Another Christian scholar commenting on this passage said that the high priest tore his clothes because Jesus inferred that he (the high priest) was as evil as the Greek ruler who had defiled the Temple a couple hundred years earlier. You guys are just guessing what Jesus meant, based on statements that you cannot be certain Jesus even said!//

I don't know who this anonymous Christian scholar is. So, it's difficult to comment on the claim, or confirm its accuracy. The scholar probably has a fuller defense of his claim that you're only [understandably] summarizing. But so what? How is that incompatible with what I and other Christian scholars have said about the high priest tearing his clothes and his condemnation of Jesus for blasphemy? Why assume it's a case of "either/or" rather than "both/and"? In fact, I have no problem with that possible interpretation since it's perfectly comptible with my interpretation and the interpretation of the Christian scholars I respect.

Well, I've address all of your objections. I don't expect you to respond to everything I've written. Like I said at the very beginning of this blog, I don't have time for, and so am not looking for a long debate with an atheist. I've done that plenty of times. I've also already spent a lot of time writing up this blog to address your basic objections to Christianity which other and better Christian apologists have addressed in their works [books, articles, videos, audio etc.]. But I took the time to write this up out of compassion to someone who seems to have apostatized due to emotional reasons rather than good intellectual and rational reasons.

UPDATE:

I later realized I accidentally missed responding to some of Gary's comments. So, the following is my response:

//If Jesus really was God, why all the cat and mouse games about his identity? Bottom line: Jesus does not clearly and without ambiguity claim that he is God in the Synoptics…at any time…even at the end in Jerusalem. John’s Gospels involves a much higher christology. This is evidence of an evolving view of Jesus’ divinity.//

//If Jesus really was God, why all the cat and mouse games about his identity?....//

Jesus was in a Jewish society that would have automatically rejected anybody claiming to be God in the flesh by either declaring Him crazy and leading others to dismiss Him and His teaching, or by stoning Him to death for blasphemy. That's why He had to first prove He was was the Messiah by His miraculous works. As Arnold Fruchtenbaum argues in his lectures on the Jewish Life of Christ, any Messianic candidate had to be observed in his actions. Also, I already said in my previous comments the following:

//For most of Jesus’ ministry He kept His messiahship veiled. Preferring to declare His messiahship by His deeds rather than His words. Saving the words for the end of His ministry. Scholars call this the “Messianic Secret.” See the wikipedia article on the Messianic Secret.

If Jesus kept His messiahship a secret during most of His ministry, then if He were God [the 2nd person of the Trinity], then He would all the more kept His divinity a secret. And as a matter of fact, in virtually all the places in GJohn were Jesus declares His Divinity, it’s still veiled in some sense. He’s hinting at it much more strongly than in the Synoptics, but it’s still not perfectly clear to His original audience, even though it’s meant to be clear to the readers of the Gospel. If Jesus revealed His divinity openly and overtly at the very start of His ministry, He would have been sentenced to death too early in God’s plan (especially given the prophecy in Dan. 9 about the timing of the public manifestation of the Messiah). See also, Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s lectures on the Messiah and how He was supposed to declare His messiahship first by deeds here:

The Jewish Life of Christ by Arnold Fruchtenbaum [21 lectures in mp3]
https://www.deanbibleministries.org/bible-class-listing/messages/series/the-jewish-life-of-christ

//

//Bottom line: Jesus does not clearly and without ambiguity claim that he is God in the Synoptics…at any time…even at the end in Jerusalem.//

There are clear indications that the authors of Mark and Matthew believed Jesus was divine in some sense [Ehrman agrees]. I would argue even portraying Him as Yahweh. Here's the link again to my blogpost on the Christology of the Gospel of Mark:

Markan Christology
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/03/markan-christology.html

See also Anthony Rogers videos on Mark at his channel. He's my favorite living defender of the doctrine of the Trinity. See also his debates which are on other people's channels too.

Now to address your objection. First off, as I said before, even in the Gospel of John, Jesus' claims to deity aren't perfectly overt. Even when you factor in the more overt occasions where Jesus hints at it and alludes to it, the statements could still be interpreted in a way that evades the clear meaning of the author of John. Even the Jews in the the Gospel of John sometimes weren't sure if Jesus was claiming full deity or not. In their minds Jesus was giving them mixed messages. That's also why there are still Unitarians today who reject the idea that the Gospel of John teaches Jesus' full deity.

I'm still thinking about the height of Luke's Christology [i.e. how high?]. But how do you account for the fact that Gospels Mark and Matthew clearly presents Jesus as fully God YET doesn't have Jesus referring to Himself as God openly? If the authors were making it all up, then they could/would have put in Jesus' mouth overt claims to being Yahweh. But they don't even though they portray Jesus as Yahweh. That seems to be a mark of their trying to be historical. Of restraining themselves to the historical facts, rather than what they would like Jesus to have said. And again, Jesus doesn't do it in the Gospel of John either. Not even John 8:58 which comes closest to Jesus declaring Himself Yahweh. Unitarians even dispute the interpretation of that verse. So, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The contrast between the Synoptics portrayal of Jesus' self-identity and claims with that of GJohn isn't as stark as you portray it. Jesus does virtually claim to be Yahweh in Mark and Matthew. For example, among other places in Mark 14:62 and 6:50. In Matthew when Jesus says He's greater than the temple [Matt. 12:6], despite the Temple being the abode of God where Yahweh dwells. When Jesus says what He says in Matt. 18:20.

Matt. 18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."

This is meant to parallel a famous saying among rabbis during the first century.

"Where two sit together to study the Torah, the Shekinah glory [i.e. the Divine Presence] rests between them." (Mishnah, Pirke Aboth 3:2)

[Also translated, "But two who sit and exchange words of Torah, the Divine Presence rests amongst them..." - Ethics of the Fathers (Pirkei Avot), chapter 3 ]

The Jewish Annotated New Testament which is NON-Messianic, confirms this on page 34, "rabbinic teachings stated that the Divine (Heb “shekhinah”) is present when people study Torah (m. Avot 3.2,6).

 Matt. 28:20 which is the ending part of the inclusio of  Matt. 1:23 where Jesus is said to be "God WITH us." Jesus says in Matt. 28:20 "I will be WITH YOU always, to the very end of the age," echoing the inclusio of Matt. 1:23. 

At that Great Commission in Matt. 28, Jesus is also alluding to His divinity because the author of Matthew, as scholars have noted, structures his Gospel in 5 segments to mimic the 5 books of the Torah. In order to portray Jesus as the new Moses and the new Joshua [Jesus and Joshua have the same name because "Yeshua" is just a shortened version of "Yehoshua"]. Just as Moses was on the mountain about to die and gave his last instructions to the people, so Jesus is on a high hill before He departs. Just as Joshua is given the command to OBSERVE all of the Law of God and that Yahweh will be WITH him, so Jesus tells His disciples to OBSERVE all that He taught and that He will be WITH them. Notice the parallels.

Matt. 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Joshua 1:5 No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life. Just as I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not leave you or forsake you.

Joshua 1:8 This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.
9 Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go."

Jesus is clearly being portrayed as doing what Yahweh did at the end of the book of Deuteronomy and the beginning of the book of Joshua. Just as Joshua and His army are told by Yahweh to go INWARD to invade the Promised Land to conquer, so Jesus tells His army [i.e. the Church] to conquer going OUTWARD by converting the nations into disciples.

Acts chapter 1 has Jesus commanding the disciples to disciple the nations in concentric circles outward from Jerusalem [Jerusalem, then Judea, then Samaria, then the ends of the earth].

Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

Remember too that the ending of GMatt and GLuke [Matt. 28:17 and Luke 24:52] have the disciples worshipping Jesus. Yes, the word for "worship" could be translated to mean "do obeisance" as to a human ruler, but the context and rest of the books make it clear that it's a worship of Jesus as divine.

 

//This is evidence of an evolving view of Jesus’ divinity.//

Most scholars hold to Markan Priority. Meaning, Mark was written first. Yet, Mark has nearly as high a Christology as John [as I prove in my blogpost and as Anthony Rogers does in his videos]. So there's very little development in the level of Christology. It's mostly just it being expressed differently. Part of the reason why it might be expressed differently is because the Synoptics more closely record the ipsissima verba of Jesus, while the GJohn records the ipsissima vox [see Craig Evans' statements on this in his videos and books].

See also Lydia McGrew's statements where she opposes some of what Evans' says about ipsissima vox. I think the truth is somewhere in between the views of Lydia McGrew and Craig Evans.

My blogpost:

Why Don't the Synoptics Have Jesus Claiming to be the "I Am"?
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2018/03/why-dont-synoptics-have-jesus-claiming.html

Here's a blogpost from my all time favorite all around apologist, the late Steve Hays:

Are the "I am" statements authentic? by Steve Hays
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/03/are-i-am-statements-authentic.html

See Lydia McGrew's thoughts on the topic:

Jesus never said the "I am" statements? by Lydia McGrew
https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2017/09/jesus-never-said-i-am-statements.html

Transcript and commentary: The "I am" statements, again by Lydia McGrew
https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2018/03/transcript-and-commentary-i-am.html

UPDATE TWO:

MORE LINKS:

See Trent Horn's video here:

Nothing Fails Like Bible History (REBUTTED) by Trent Horn
https://youtu.be/kc-wpFyb_yo

Is the Exodus History? A Conversation with Dr. Titus Kennedy
https://youtu.be/czUyRQ6rUXw

EP29: Egyptian Evidence for the Exodus w/ Dr. Titus Kennedy and Dr. Steve Meyer, Discovery Institute
https://youtu.be/ZMMxf1HeE0c