> How do you know that's exactly the same as original version of what paul wrote?

The only way to discredit the text is to deny the evidence and make up a fictional different story. The text of 1 Corinthians 15.1-8 has no textual discrepancies. If you want to make a case that the text has changed, you need to posit evidence to that effect.

> Did he speak to any of the 500?

The implication is that he had spoken to at least some of them and knew who they were. He seems to know most are still alive and some have died. He purpose in mentioning it seems clear enough: Go talk to them yourselves and check what I'm saying if you doubt my words.

> Did paul have any way of confirming the extraordinary claims of any of the 500 witnesses?

Yes, Paul says he saw Jesus, too. Not in a visionary sense, but for real, but not before Jesus ascended, as the other disciples saw him (1 Cor. 15.8).

> There are people today who see visions/hallucinations and believe it's real and interact with it as if it's real.

Of course there are. What you need to substantiate is what makes you think the apostles fall into this category. We get to read their writings. They don't come across as madmen. When you read Edgar Allan Poe or late Nietzsche, you can see the madness creeping in. Not so in the Gospels. Read Peter's speeches in Acts chapters 2-5 and following.

> Also, was this terminology in Paul's original texts?

Yes. The texts are not doubted, even by critical scholars.

> Who documented this extraordinary claim?

The eyewitnesses.

> Who questioned the men to confirm their extraordinary testimony?

Many.

> The unconfirmed authors of the Bible and people theses authors wrote about claimed jesus was resurrected?

Though the writings of the Gospels are subject to great debate, the writings of Paul are not. He's sort of an ace-in-the-hole, so to speak. We have some letters by him that are undisputed by scholars that they were written by Paul, originally a non-believer, a persecutor of Christians, converted to faith in Christ. Historically speaking he's a fantastic source.

- He's a hostile source, to begin with (Gal. 2.1-10, AD 49-55). He names Peter and John as disciples, and James, the brother of Jesus. According to Paul, the leaders of the Jerusalem church in AD 50 certified that Paul was preaching the same gospel message they were.
- He's an early source
- He claims to be an eyewitness
- He knew Jesus's disciples
- He certified the same gospel message

> Shouldn't the questions be: did they really see him and did anyone question them about what they saw?

Those were the questions. Many people questioned them. Read the book of Acts.

> What route?

You claim that they claim to these conclusions under the influence of hallucinogens. The historical evidences we have are that the men who wrote the Bible were normal people whose lives had been changed by the reality of the physical resurrection of Jesus. We can read what they wrote, we can read what others said about them, and we can see how history was changed by their claims. If you want to make a different claim (the "route" of logic that they were ingesting psychogenics), you have to arrive at this conclusion by the route of fabricating evidence. There is no objective or evidence to lead someone through this route to the conclusion you have contrived.

> People have written that the disciples lives changed. How does their life changing confirmed that what they saw was real? ... If they were willing to die for what they saw, does that mean what they saw rad real?

Maybe you've read some of the history of Watergate. When people's lives are threatened, they squeal. Nobody but nobody goes down for a lie.

Maybe you've seen the movie "Zero Dark Thirty." The character Dan (a torturer) says, "It's cool, that you're strong and I respect it, I do. But in the end, everybody breaks, bro. It's biology."

Nobody dies for what they know to be a lie. Nobody dies for what they saw under the effects of psychogenetic substances.

> There is no evidence for the contrary in a collection of books translated and hand picked from over a hundred gospels by the members of the church, and there are no original, does that mean what they saw was real?

You ludicrously overestimate the power of the Church Fathers to control all manuscripts across the Empire.

> If "they shared (preached) to others on the basis that Jesus really, historically, physically rose from the dead" does that mean jesus actually did rise from the dead?

No, we have to examine all the evidences, pursue all the alternatives, and use both evidence and logic to pursue to hypothesis.

> I didn't say they all saw the same exact thing. But could different hallucinations be interpreted as the same thing? Has anyone confirmed that they all saw the same thing?

> 1 Corinthians 15.6 says 500 people saw the resurrected Christ at the same time.

How do you know that's exactly the same as original version of what paul wrote? Did he speak to any of the 500? Did paul have any way of confirming the extraordinary claims of any of the 500 witnesses? some way of confirming what jesus looked with the witnesses?

> The language who used? Who's terminology? Is it the author's or the witnesses? Who has confirmed this?

> The Greeks had several different terms for seeing. The one the authors of the Gospels and the Paul used was for physical seeing of something that was actually there, a gazing at it to study it and confirm it by eyesight, not a quick glance or a visionary experience.

There are people today who see visions/hallucinations and believe it's real and interact with it as if it's real. If people's brains work the same way then as it does now, it's possible people saw visions/hallucinations and thought it was real and used the word for "see" instead of "vision".

Also, was this terminology in Paul's original texts?

> If someone's life changed based on what they thought they saw, does that mean what they saw was true? ... Of course not. But the men to whom you are referring didn't just see Jesus once, but multiple times, in different places and in different situations.

Who documented this extraordinary claim? Who questioned the men to confirm their extraordinary testimony? Who examined the men's state of mind to confirm their extraordinary testimony was true? And did anyone confirm with any or all of the men to make sure they know what jesus looked like compared to what they saw?

> Some people now, in a time of access to more information, purposely take substances to induce visions/hallucinations, and think their hallucinations are real. How do we confirm if it's real or not?

> Yes, there are people now who fit that description. The real question is, on what basis have you examined the original documents of the New Testament and come up with a strong case that the writings of these men point to a drug-induced alter-reality?

The unconfirmed authors of the Bible and people theses authors wrote about claimed jesus was resurrected? Shouldn't the questions be: did they really see him and did anyone question them about what they saw? How can we confirm they really say what they claim? If we can't confirmed what they saw, are there other possibilities? If I'm wrong, are your correct?

> Is this the same way people confirmed the extraordinary claims of what the eye witnesses of the Bible said they saw?

> No, not at all. As you read the NT, there is nothing in the writings to lead someone to this conclusion. They would only arrive at this conclusion by some other route.

What route?

> How have you confirmed that all the disciples lives were changed? ... Historiography. The travels, writings, and ministries of the apostles after the resurrection. What other contemporaries said about them. Some of them we lose track of pretty quickly after Acts 2.1-4, 14-15; Acts 5.12, 29; 6.2, etc., but what is in early Acts is enough to provide a case for changed lives. Searching historical references, there is no case for what you are claiming—that their lives were unaffected.

People have written that the disciples lives changed. How does their life changing confirmed that what they saw was real?

> How have you confirmed everyone in the group was willing to die for what they saw? ... Historical references tell us, and there are other accounts that would lead us to the same conclusion

If they were willing to die for what they saw, does that mean what they saw was real?

> The evidence we have says they were willing to die for what they saw. There is no evidence to the contrary.

There is no evidence for the contrary in a collection of books translated and hand picked from over a hundred gospels by the members of the church, and there are no original, does that mean what they saw was real?

If "they shared (preached) to others on the basis that Jesus really, historically, physically rose from the dead" does that mean jesus actually did rise from the dead?

> I didn't say they all saw the same exact thing. But could different hallucinations be interpreted as the same thing? Has anyone confirmed that they all saw the same thing?

1 Corinthians 15.6 says 500 people saw the resurrected Christ at the same time.

> The language who used? Who's terminology? Is it the author's or the witnesses? Who has confirmed this?

The Greeks had several different terms for seeing. The one the authors of the Gospels and the Paul used was for physical seeing of something that was actually there, a gazing at it to study it and confirm it by eyesight, not a quick glance or a visionary experience.

> If someone's life changed based on what they thought they saw, does that mean what they saw was true?

Of course not. But the men to whom you are referring didn't just see Jesus once, but multiple times, in different places and in different situations. As you read the Gospels, there's nothing about the stories that smacks of hallucinatory experiences.

We know that lots of students did hallucinogenic drugs in the 60s. There are plenty of people around who clearly know the difference between drug-induced hallucinations and real life.

> Some people now, in a time of access to more information, purposely take substances to induce visions/hallucinations, and think their hallucinations are real. How do we confirm if it's real or not?

Yes, there are people now who fit that description. The real question is, on what basis have you examined the original documents of the New Testament and come up with a strong case that the writings of these men point to a drug-induced alter-reality?

> Is this the same way people confirmed the extraordinary claims of what the eye witnesses of the Bible said they saw?

No, not at all. As you read the NT, there is nothing in the writings to lead someone to this conclusion. They would only arrive at this conclusion by some other route.

> How have you confirmed that all the disciples lives were changed?

Historiography. The travels, writings, and ministries of the apostles after the resurrection. What other contemporaries said about them. Some of them we lose track of pretty quickly after Acts 2.1-4, 14-15; Acts 5.12, 29; 6.2, etc., but what is in early Acts is enough to provide a case for changed lives. Searching historical references, there is no case for what you are claiming—that their lives were unaffected.

> How have you confirmed everyone in the group was willing to die for what they saw?

Historical references tell us, and there are other accounts that would lead us to the same conclusion.

- James was killed by Herod Agrippa (Acts 12.2) for his faith.
- Peter was crucified for his faith, and his martyrdom is reported by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and more
- Andrew is said to have been martyred by crucifixion at the city of Patras in Achaea
- We have several traditions about Philip and Bartholomew. One says they were crucified, another says they were beheaded for their faith.
- According to tradition, Thomas was killed in AD 72 in India.
- Tradition says the other James was crucified in Egypt for his faith.
- Tradition says Thaddaeus was martyred in Lebanon.
- Little or nothing is known about the deaths of Matthew, Simon the Zealot, or John the son of Zebedee.

The evidence we have says they were willing to die for what they saw. There is no evidence to the contrary.

> How have you confirmed who preached what? How have you confirmed what they preached?

The book of Acts contains the contents of their teachings.

> First of all, a hallucination explanation doesn't make sense because there is no such thing as a group hallucination. Such things are individual experiences, not the common experiences of a group at the same time.

I didn't say they all saw the same exact thing. But could different hallucinations be interpreted as the same thing? Has anyone confirmed that they all saw the same thing?

> Secondly, all the language they use is the language of eyesight, not visions. The terminology is solidly in the camp of physical eyesight and legitimate experience, not a mental, virtual, or visionary one.

The language who used? Who's terminology? Is it the author's or the witnesses? Who has confirmed this?

> Thirdly, their lives were radically changed by their experiences.

I'm sure some people who thought their hallucination was real, had life altering experiences. If someone's life changed based on what they thought they saw, does that mean what they saw was true?

> Many people have visions, and many have hallucinations. People are generally quite aware of the differences between their substance-induced hallucinogenic experiences and real life.

Some people now, in a time of access to more information, purposely take substances to induce visions/hallucinations, and think their hallucinations are real. How do we confirm if it's real or not?

Is this the same way people confirmed the extraordinary claims of what the eye witnesses of the Bible said they saw?

> The disciples lives were changed to the point of some, if not all, being willing to die for what they had seen. It carries far less import if it was a hallucination.

How have you confirmed that all the disciples lives were changed?

How have you confirmed everyone in the group was willing to die for what they saw?

> Fourth, they shared (preached) to others on the basis that Jesus really, historically, physically rose from the dead.

How have you confirmed who preached what? How have you confirmed what they preached? How have you confirmed what they preached was true?

The problem with your case is that the entire thing is based on conjecture, possibilities, and inferences. There isn't a solid fact in your whole case to substantiate your hypothesis.

> There is evidence of people using hallucinogenic and psychoactive ingredients before, during, and after jesus lived. There is evidence of people using hallucinogenic and psychoactive ingredients in and around the communities the books of the Bible were written.

Proximity isn't evidence, but merely context. I live in a country where there is a fentanyl epidemic, but I don't use the stuff. I live in a country where pot is becoming legalized and has long been recreation, but I've never smoked the stuff. Proximity is meaningless in your argument.

> There is speculation...Kaneh bosem (possibility of 5th ingredient)...Acorus calamus: possible ingredient of Kaneh bosem

And then you build a case from there. That's not good enough. You yourself said we have to present evidence. This isn't evidence but conjecture and possibly not even reliable conjecture.

> There are oils, from plants, that can be absorbed through the skin, that causes hallucinations.

Of course there are, but you haven't given evidence that was a component of the holy oil but that maybe it was part of what possibly had been potentially part of what might have been in it. That's not good enough.

> The Holy anointing oil of the themple is not related at all to the holy anointing oil that Moses or jesus or the disciples used? And weren't these oils placed on the skin/head?

Moses once anointed Aaron and his sons with oil (Lev. 8.10, 30; 10.7). And, yes, it was placed on the head. That's it. You're making a case out of that? Jesus never used anointing oil. There is one record of the disciples anointing people with oil (Mark 6.13). But your case is that the Bible was written by people indulging in hallucinogens. You're not presenting any evidence of that.

> the witnesses and writers who say they saw the risen jesus and other holy spirits and angels? probably.

On what basis and by what evidence can you say "probably"?

> The primary advocate of a religious use of cannabis plant in early Judaism was Sula Benet

This is the opinion of several scholars, but it's not widely affirmed and not even close to being confirmed. Most biblical scholars disagree. You know as well as I that the identification of kaneh bosm is highly debated, that there are other candidates for the ingredient, and so your case rests on too many speculations to carry the weight of scholarship.

>It's not only possible, buts it's 100% probable that people using hallucinogenic and psychoactive ingredients before, during, and after jesus lived.

Of course they did. People have always used psychoactive plants. But proximity doesn't equal either evidence or proof.

> That, combined with a host of cognitive biases, plus: John 20:11–18, Luke 24:13–21, John 21:1–13, Acts 2:14-15, supports the hypothesis that the resurrected jesus was probably hallucinated.

This is absurd—a case pulled out of the air. I'm reading John 20.11-18. Where's there any hint of hallucination? In v. 12 Mary "saw." The tense of the verb is historical present. The verb means "careful notice, to studiously and attentively consider, to view with attention, a lengthened look." It is used of bodily, physical sight and assumes the object is actually present. Mary's answer (v. 13): "They have taken him away and I don't know where they put him," is not the answer of a woman who is hallucinating. She obviously doesn't realize they are angels, so they must not be glowing, and they must be in normal clothes. She's not lost in some hallucination but grieved over a missing body. Then she turns and sees Jesus (v. 14) but doesn't realize it's him. Again, not the language of hallucination. The word used for "she saw Jesus" is the same verb as before: Careful notice. It says she thought he was the gardener (v. 15). Your argument of hallucination doesn't make any sense.

> Yes, as stated at one instance in the Bible, but stating it doesn't make everyone follow words on a page because Moses, jesus, and the disciples used it.

Moses used it once, Jesus never did, and the disciples used an oil, but there's no evidence that the disciples used anything other than normal olive oil (the use of olive oil was one of the best remedial agencies known to the ancients). There is no indication in Mark 6.13 of any specific oil or any specific ingredients. Again your case is founded on pure speculation, and not necessarily reliable speculation.

> Exodus 30:22-33

This was a special formula for the temple, never to be used for any other purpose. But then you assume that when Jesus tells the disciples to anoint with oil he's speaking about the same recipe. That doesn't follow, nor does it make sense. That's like reading that my great-grandfather ate breakfast, and since I also eat breakfast we must be eating the same things.

> Psalm 45

You make it sound like there was only one kind of oil in all these situations, and therefore it must be hallucinogenic. But as you have admitted, there were many different recipes for oil.

> Acts 2:3-4 ... They probably used their own drug/anointing oil.

This is a leap in the dark, not a leap of logic.

> This verse was Meant to show how anointing was done, not that another noting oil is Olive oil. The recipe for anointing oil is in exodus.

Again this is untrue. The ingredients of the special formula for the temple oil is in Exodus. It was a special mixture, forbidden for other uses under the pain of death. The ancients used different recipes for perfume (Esther 2.12), celebrations (Ps. 23.5), and medicine (Lk. 10.34).

> Below is evidence to cast doubt, not prove, that the extraordinary claims (not facts), that a god exists, written in a book, by mostly unconfirmed authors, were probably hallucinations and the extraordinary claims do not have evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Your evidence is far too weak and speculative to cast any doubt.

> According to Exodus 30:22-25, one of the ingredients of holy anointing oil is Kaneh basam.

This is not true either. You have only said if q'nei busma is an accurate translation of keneh bosom, and if this is actually acorus calamus, and if...and if... Acorus calamus can be medicinal; it can be aromatic; but it certainly doesn't have to be hallucinogenic.

> "There is no evidence that the authors of Scripture were even possibly under the influence of the sacred oil"; "Manna is different than mushrooms"... Please provide evidence for this claim.

I can't argue from silence. There is no connection anywhere in Scripture with oil and authorship. None. Your assertion is pure and unsubstantiated speculation.

As far as manna, it came with the dew. That's not a description of mushrooms. The most frequent identification of it is with the description of small aphids that feed on the sap of tamarisk trees. When it hardens and falls to the ground it can be collected and used for a sweetener. Some think it was the seed liquid of the hammed plant, common in southern Sinai. But even that doesn't describe the phenomenon. The people describe it as more bread-like—thin flakes like frost (Ex. 16.14). It seems to be a scaly substance. Nothing in any of the record lends itself to identification as mushrooms.

> Anything is possible, but is it reasonable? Your case is not even close to being possible beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unfortunately, that's not how claims and reasonable doubt works. If there is a claim, and I cast a doubt on the possibility of that claim, the people making the claim have a burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. There is an extraordinary unconfirmed claim that a god exists from people, documented by mostly unknown authors, in very old copied texts. I'm attempting to cast a doubt on the unconfirmed extraordinary claims, documented by mostly unconfirmed authors, by presenting evidence. There is evidence of people using hallucinogenic and psychoactive ingredients before, during, and after jesus lived. There is evidence of people using hallucinogenic and psychoactive ingredients in and around the communities the books of the Bible were written.

> OK, thanks. There is obviously a grave misunderstanding on your part or the part of your source. First, the oil to which you are referring was never ingested either by mouth or inhalation.

Sorry, you were meant to link the fact that olive oil mediates the transfer of other compounds through the skin.

> If you read Exodus 30.26-28, it was poured on articles of furniture. In Ex. 30.30, it was poured on the heads of the priests.

Yes. Olive oil enhances the delivery, of other oils or compounds its mixed with, through the skin. There are oils, from plants, that can be absorbed through the skin, that causes hallucinations.

> Secondly, this oil in the temple had nothing to do with the writing of the Scriptures,

The Holy anointing oil of the themple is not related at all to the holy anointing oil that Moses or jesus or the disciples used? And weren't these oils placed on the skin/head?

> nor can we infer the authors were under any kind of influence of it when they were writing.

All The writers? Probably not.

the witnesses and writers who say they saw the risen jesus and other holy spirits and angels? probably.

> Your claim was that "the authors, and witnesses were likely under the influence of hallucinogenic and psychoactive compounds." But there's no evidence of that anywhere, at all.

The primary advocate of a religious use of cannabis plant in early Judaism was Sula Benet, also called Sara Benetowa, a Polish anthropologist, who claimed in 1967 that the plant kaneh bosm קְנֵה-בֹשֶׂם mentioned five times in the Hebrew Bible, and used in the holy anointing oil of the Book of Exodus, was in fact cannabis.[23] The Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church confirmed it as a possible valid interpretation.[24] The lexicons of Hebrew and dictionaries of plants of the Bible such as by Michael Zohary (1985), Hans Arne Jensen(2004) and James A. Duke (2010) and others identify the plant in question as either Acorus calamus or Cymbopogon citratus.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen

It's not only possible, buts it's 100% probable that people using hallucinogenic and psychoactive ingredients before, during, and after jesus lived. There is 100% probability of people using hallucinogenic and psychoactive ingredients in and around the communities the books of the Bible were written. There is 100% probability that people, living now and in the past, and in multiple locations all over the world, have had hallucinations of people they know have died. That, combined with a host of cognitive biases, plus: John 20:11–18, Luke 24:13–21, John 21:1–13, Acts 2:14-15, supports the hypothesis that the resurrected jesus was probably hallucinated.

> Third, there was a strict regulation that this recipe was used only in the temple for these sacred anointings and never for any other use (Ex. 30.32-33). Your case is completely unfounded and falls apart at the first sign of research.

Yes, as stated at one instance in the Bible, but stating it doesn't make everyone follow words on a page because Moses, jesus, and the disciples used it. But these passages prove anointing oil wasn't only used in temples, but also used by Moses, jesus, and the disciples.
Exodus 30:22-33 King James Version (KJV) 22 Moreover the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 23 Take thou also unto thee principal spices, of pure myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet cinnamon half so much, even two hundred and fifty shekels, and of sweet calamus two hundred and fifty shekels, 24 And of cassia five hundred shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, and of oil olive an hin: 25 And thou shalt make it an oil of holy ointment, an ointment compound after the art of the apothecary: it shall be an holy anointing oil.

Jesus gave the disciple anointing oil. Mark 6:7-13

7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirit... 13 And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.

Psalm 45:7-8 7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 8 All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad.

Acts 2:3-4 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

They probably used their own drug/anointing oil.

> Your claim that it was "later extended to include prophets and kings (I Samuel 10:1)" is misguided also. Samuel used a flask of olive oil, not the sacred recipe. There's nothing in the text to suggest anything but common olive oil.

This verse was meant to show how anointing was done, not that another noting oil is Olive oil. The recipe for anointing oil is in exodus.
There is no evidence that the sacred oil was hallucinogenic. Your case had several fatal speculations with no evidence let alone proof.
Below is evidence to cast doubt, not prove, that the extraordinary claims (not facts), that a god exists, written in a book, by mostly unconfirmed authors, were probably hallucinations and the extraordinary claims do not have evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
According to Exodus 30:22-25, one of the ingredients of holy anointing oil is Kaneh basam.

Polish anthropologist, who claimed in 1967 that the plant kaneh bosm קְנֵה-בֹשֶׂם mentioned five times in the Hebrew Bible, and used in the holy anointing oil of the Book of Exodus, was in fact cannabis.[23] The Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church confirmed it as a possible valid interpretation.[24] The lexicons of Hebrew and dictionaries of plants of the Bible such as by Michael Zohary (1985), Hans Arne Jensen(2004) and James A. Duke (2010) and others identify the plant in question as either Acorus calamus or Cymbopogon citratus. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen

> There is no evidence that the authors of Scripture were even possibly under the influence of the sacred oil

> Manna is different than mushrooms

Please provide evidence for this claim.

> The sacred oil was neither burned (to enter the body through the sinuses) nor ingested (to enter the body through the mouth)

I agree.

OK, thanks. There is obviously a grave misunderstanding on your part or the part of your source. First, the oil to which you are referring was never ingested either by mouth or inhalation. If you read Exodus 30.26-28, it was poured on articles of furniture. In Ex. 30.30, it was poured on the heads of the priests. Secondly, this oil in the temple had nothing to do with the writing of the Scriptures, nor can we infer the authors were under any kind of influence of it when they were writing. Your claim was that "the authors, and witnesses were likely under the influence of hallucinogenic and psychoactive compounds." But there's no evidence of that anywhere, at all. Third, there was a strict regulation that this recipe was used only in the temple for these sacred anointings and never for any other use (Ex. 30.32-33). Your case is completely unfounded and falls apart at the first sign of research.

Your claim that it was "later extended to include prophets and kings (I Samuel 10:1)" is misguided also. Samuel used a flask of olive oil, not the sacred recipe. There's nothing in the text to suggest anything but common olive oil.

> There are extrabiblical documentation of people, in Sumerian civilization and Ancient Rome Before, during, using hallucinogenic and psychoactive substances.

Of course there are. That has nothing to do with Israelite usage or anything to do with the authorship of the Bible.

> Writers of, and witnesses within The Old and New Testament Lived in Ancient Sumerian and Ancient Rome.

Yes, undeniably.

> it's possible that the witnesses, people within a society that used hallucinogenic and psychoactive drugs, who saw god, were under the influence hallucinogenic and psychoactive drugs, then there character should be called into question before we accept their testimony and anecdotal claim that a god exists.

We have to ask not just what's possible, but what's reasonable given all that we know, and your case holds no water. We weigh the positive and negative evidence to infer the most reasonable explanation, and your case if fatally flawed in many areas

- There is no evidence that the sacred oil was hallucinogenic. Your case had several fatal speculations with no evidence let alone proof.
- There is no evidence that the authors of Scripture were even possibly under the influence of the sacred oil.
- Manna is different than mushrooms
- The sacred oil was neither burned (to enter the body through the sinuses) nor ingested (to enter the body through the mouth)

Anything is possible, but is it reasonable? Your case is not even close to being possible beyond a reasonable doubt.

> Composition of anointing oil: Myrrh, cinnamon, cassia, olive oil, Kaneh bosem (5th ingredient)

> What's the source for this information? The only possible source could be samples of millennia-old oils. I'm not aware of any such samples, nor did you footnote this part.

Exodus 30:22-25

There are extrabiblical documentation of people, in Sumerian civilization and Ancient Rome Before, during, using hallucinogenic and psychoactive substances.

Writers of, and witnesses within The Old and New Testament Lived in Ancient Sumerian and Ancient Rome.

it's possible that the witnesses, people within a society that used hallucinogenic and psychoactive drugs, who saw god, were under the influence hallucinogenic and psychoactive drugs, then there character should be called into question before we accept their testimony and anecdotal claim that a god exists.

> Composition of anointing oil: Myrrh, cinnamon, cassia, olive oil, Kaneh bosem (5th ingredient)

> Olive oil is an effective carrier for drugs to be absorbed more easily through the skin.

So your argument is: "olive oil is part of anointing oil, olive oil can be a carrier for drugs, therefore anointing oil is drug-oil".

Alright. By this logic we can look at someone cooking and say: "They are putting olive oil in their frying pan. Olive oil is an effective carrier for drugs. Therefore they are feeding their children drugs."

Such a statement would be as baseless as your argument.

Another example:

> Early Christians used cannabis oil for medicinal purposes and as part of baptism to confirm the forgiveness of sins and “right of passage” into the Kingdom of Heaven

So early Christians used marijuana as a part of their baptisms? Okay, and yet no evidence is provided for this...

And then again:

> A number of ethnomycologists, including Terence McKenna,[25] have suggested that most characteristics of manna are similar to that of Psilocybe cubensis mushrooms, notorious breeding grounds for insects, which decompose rapidly.

Oho! So when the Bible says "manna", which is described as bread, it must really mean... mushroom! And your argument for this is that: "a number of ethnomycologists including Terence McKenna" noted similarities between the bread of the Old Testament and rapidly decomposing mushrooms? Need anyone really say more?

> Most lexicographers, botanists, and biblical commentators translate keneh bosem as "cane balsam".

So if cane balsam is an accurate translation of keneh bosom:

> The Aramaic Targum Onkelosrenders the Hebrew kaneh bosem in Aramaic as q'nei busma.

And if q'nei busma is an accurate translation of keneh bosom,

> [61] Ancient translations and sources identify this with the plant variously referred to as sweet cane, or sweet flag

and if these identifications are correct:

> This plant is known to botanists as acorus calamus.

If all those ifs are correct, then we can say the plant is acorus calamus. Okay. But wait a minute:

> [62] According to Aryeh Kaplan in The Living Torah, "It appears that a similar species grew in the Holy Land, in the Hula region in ancient times (Theophrastus, History of Plants 9:7)."[63]

... Oh. So even if all those ifs are correct then it's not actually that plant after all, instead it's a different species... Hmm. And not only is it a different species but no-one actually knows whether or not this actually grew there at the time?

Well, let's just forgive that. After all that a plant appears to have grown somewhere at some point in the past is better than nothing. And after all a similar, albeit a different species of plant is better than nothing, too, right? Strange that no information is given as to what "similar" exactly means in this context, though. I wonder if it is as similar as bread to mushrooms?

But never mind. Moving on:

> Chewing the rootstock of the plant can cause visual hallucinations, possibly because of the presence of alpha-asarone or beta-asarone.[34]

... Oh. So the different species of plant (which may or may not be the correct one anyway, and which may or may not have grown there, but which some speculate that it appears to have) causes hallucinations only if the root-stock is chewed. Okay.

Well, let's be as generous as possible, ignore all the shakiness, weaknesses and uncertainties in the argument, and take a great big leap of faith. Let's assume that: (1) all the "ifs" are absolute certainties, and (2) let's just assume that this different species of plant is similar enough to the aforementioned hallucinogenic plant that they have exactly the same properties, despite being a different species!(3) and let's also assume, for sake of convenience, that it grew there.

This then raises other questions: was the rootstock itself used in the oil?

Let's ignore that, (because your argument is shaky enough already) and just assume with 100% certainty that it was.

This raises another question: since chewing the rootstock causes hallucinations does this still apply when it is poured over the head? Well, let's ignore that too and assume that pouring this oil over the head will cause vivid hallucinations anyway.

Now we have another question: would the hallucinogenic properties remain after the process of being brewed into the oil? Since, as far as I know, no-one has replicated this exact oil we can't really say.

... And such is your argument. But well done for trying, I guess. You sure did "stick it to the man" right there with all that logic. You sure showed all those ignorant marijuana-smoking Christians amirite? Slow clap.

Would you like me to comment on one of your other points as well or have you heard enough to see why your argument is rubbish?

You're right that the Bible doesn't prove that God exists. The Bible is His revelation of Himself, not the proof of His existence.

> the authors, and witnesses were likely under the influence of hallucinogenic and psychoactive compounds in frequently used anointing oil and other remedies.

This is off the wall with no evidence to support it.

> those who have had visions of god, and documented it in the Old and New Testament, may not have had actual visions of a god, but instead were under the influence of anointing oil, incense, and/or myrrh, which had strong phychoactive and hallucinogenic ingredients.

This, also, is without evidence.

> Composition of anointing oil: Myrrh, cinnamon, cassia, olive oil, Kaneh bosem (5th ingredient)

What's the source for this information? The only possible source could be samples of millennia-old oils. I'm not aware of any such samples, nor did you footnote this part.

> Acorus calamus: possible ingredient of Kaneh bosem

Then you launch into speculations. Kaneh bosem is a POSSIBLE 5th ingredient, and Acorus calamus is a POSSIBLE ingredient of Kaneh bosem.

Nor can you prove that the biblical writers had access to this concoction, nor that they used it.

> have suggested that most characteristics of manna are similar to that of Psilocybe cubensis mushrooms

Have suggested? similar to? This is no case.