LORD in all capitals refers to God, substituting the name YHWH (Yahweh, Jehovah)
Dunno what this has to do with the rest you said. Word became flesh refers to the incarnation of Christ. The New Testament is widely regarded as a historical document, and the Old Testament appears to be mostly correct from what I’ve looked into (although it could overexaggerate things here and there as it is essentially a collection of documents of kingdoms)
Let me guess, Josephus? He attested that there was a cult following a man named Jesus of Nazareth. It is absolutely not widely regarded that the gospels are historical documents unless you mean in the same way that the aeneid and odyssey are. The synoptics and john aren’t even in full agreement.
The old testament is less accurate, but has some more interesting scholarship.
I sincerely encourage that you actually read some secular scholarship on these topics. Roman Judea was a backwater on the edge of an empire in absolute disarray (the claimed lifetime of Jesus means he was born a subject of rhe Roman republic and preached and died a subject of Augustus). Furthermore ancient Canaan was a backwater of Egypt and Babylon that plays a very different role in each society’s histories. And don’t forget to look at the recordings of non Israelite canaanites (and not just Samaritans).
I have consumed myself with scholarship on the subject. Some secular, but some also Christian. The synoptics are in agreement with John, most, if not all “disagreements” can clearly be set down to different perspectives on the same topic. (eg, men being at the tomb vs angels. Clearly they initially saw them as men, but later figured out they were angels.)
You clearly aren’t in conversation with historians because there are only two things that are uncontroversual about the gospels: that Jesus of Nazareth was baptized by John the Baptist and that he was crucified by pontias pilate.
And the reason I reject Christian sources is their bias. There’s a reason modern devil’s advocates are often prominent atheists.
And in that vein you should take me with a grain of salt if I start talking about the historical intervention of the gods in akkad.
LORD in all capitals refers to God, substituting the name YHWH (Yahweh, Jehovah)
Dunno what this has to do with the rest you said. Word became flesh refers to the incarnation of Christ. The New Testament is widely regarded as a historical document, and the Old Testament appears to be mostly correct from what I’ve looked into (although it could overexaggerate things here and there as it is essentially a collection of documents of kingdoms)
Let me guess, Josephus? He attested that there was a cult following a man named Jesus of Nazareth. It is absolutely not widely regarded that the gospels are historical documents unless you mean in the same way that the aeneid and odyssey are. The synoptics and john aren’t even in full agreement.
The old testament is less accurate, but has some more interesting scholarship.
I sincerely encourage that you actually read some secular scholarship on these topics. Roman Judea was a backwater on the edge of an empire in absolute disarray (the claimed lifetime of Jesus means he was born a subject of rhe Roman republic and preached and died a subject of Augustus). Furthermore ancient Canaan was a backwater of Egypt and Babylon that plays a very different role in each society’s histories. And don’t forget to look at the recordings of non Israelite canaanites (and not just Samaritans).
I have consumed myself with scholarship on the subject. Some secular, but some also Christian. The synoptics are in agreement with John, most, if not all “disagreements” can clearly be set down to different perspectives on the same topic. (eg, men being at the tomb vs angels. Clearly they initially saw them as men, but later figured out they were angels.)
You clearly aren’t in conversation with historians because there are only two things that are uncontroversual about the gospels: that Jesus of Nazareth was baptized by John the Baptist and that he was crucified by pontias pilate.
And the reason I reject Christian sources is their bias. There’s a reason modern devil’s advocates are often prominent atheists.
And in that vein you should take me with a grain of salt if I start talking about the historical intervention of the gods in akkad.