Very good. My point is that Paul’s Epistles did not ‘have’ to be massaged, and I never said that.
My point in my prior post is that ‘there is no reason to suppose that they weren’t’ [massaged], since there is evidence of multiple versions of each NT book. I strongly suspectthat there were attempts to reconcile each selected NT book to each other by version selection.
How else can you explain multiple versions of each book; further, how else can you explain the selection of which particular version?
What is the color of the robe the Roman Soldiers placed upon Jesus? Was it Scarlet (Matthew), Purple (Mark & John) or White / Brilliant (Luke)? Each color is symbolic, but different in meaning.
“My point is that Paul’s Epistles did not ‘have’ to be massaged, and I never said that.”
I understood that in the light of your statement that “If these were the best (after massaging), then what were the worst?” Meaning (i presumed, sorry if wrongly so) that Paul’s words were in need of redactors to make them acceptable or conformable, and your response was to Kosta’s allegation that “Paul’s writings are clearly “harmonized” in the Nicene Creed in the beginning (where it adds to Paul’s words that the Father and the Son are of the same essence) as well as in the part where it says that Christ raised himself (rather than being raised by God, as Paul says), indicating that Paul was “close” but not on the mark.”
The existence of multiple versions of each NT book does not necessitate that this was due to deficiency in Paul’s writing, and thus needing redactors, but it certainly could be due to poor copying and subsequent attempts to reconcile them, but i reject that this was due to attempts to make each selected NT book to conflate with each other as originally penned.
Thanks for explaining the reason for your response.