2 Samuel 5:1-5, 9-10

I mention archaeology now and then, but if you want to claim something really happened, you should do that research yourself. There are easily found websites with legitimate sounding evidence on them that you shouldn't believe unless you check those names and find out if anyone else agrees with them. This is especially true with David. For example here, David is not "bone and flesh" of the people in Hebron. We don't know what merits warranted David becoming king. Two potential kings, who were from the Northern Kingdom, Saul's son and the military leader Abner were assassinated. Is 2 Samuel an example of history being written by the victors?

Since we're talking archaeology, fun fact, neither David nor Solomon is mentioned in any ancient Egyptian or Mesopotamian text. It is unlikely the kingdom was as predominant as the Bible says it was. I provide this link to show what a Millo is, and also to show the extent people will go to make claims about Jerusalem. Most of the findings of David's rule, save a single Tel Dan inscription saying "house of David", are highly disputed. One bit from here that might be true is that David setup Jerusalem as the center of whatever they considered their kingdom. This turned out to be a good move.

I don't say all of this to make the Bible any less important. In fact, I find it more impressive that the philosophies and culture and writings of a small group of people in the hills of Judea survived while much larger nations have faded from our collective memory.

2 Corinthians 12:2-10

This kind of symbolic speech can drive you nuts. I'm going to stick with the common interpretation of "a man in Christ" as Paul talking about himself. But, "third heaven", could be a lot of things. The "seven heavens" are not well defined, although I'm sure if you Google that you'll find someone who says they know exactly what they are. It's definitely above the earth, maybe below the moon, and probably some sort of paradise or place where God is, but not the uppermost heaven.

More important, is that he was given a thorn, to keep him from being boastful about this little trip he took. This sums up Paul. There is some power out there, and we can all get there, but we have to accept that we aren't there or we'll never make it there. Just what the thorn is has been speculated wildly. From an actual pain in his side to sexual urges that he thinks are wrong.

Mark 6:1-13

A comment on an atheist interpretation of this; Shaking the dust off your feet is somewhat of a dismissive act. It's symbolic of leaving behind anything from the town, its pagan or Jewish dust. The context is a description of how to go about being an itinerant preacher. You bring little with you and you don't linger where you aren't wanted. You will know if you are welcomed because they will give you food and housing. Making "testimony against them" may not sound so great, but I prefer it over planting mega-churches or setting up missions and never leaving.

Atheists also make hay about Jesus not being accepted in his hometown. They compare this to charlatans who have managed to hoodwink large crowds with their supposed miracles, but their families know what kind of person they really are and can see through it. This statement is repeated elsewhere, but not elaborated on, so I don't know if we can know if the authors were thinking that. Since this comes early in the first written gospel, I see this as a comment on what those authors didn't know. At this early time, it has not been worked out that Jesus existed with God at the beginning, as in the book of John, or that he was somehow parented by God, as in Luke. He says here he is a prophet, and he's amazed at the unbelief, an unusual turn around of people being amazed at his miracles. But it doesn't say much more about what he is or isn't.