is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.
the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.
i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.
They are word pictures.
Absolutely. And word pictures/myths are powerful. That is the core. If you have a message, hard to understand, use word pictures and story. If the Gospel writers wished to convey their conviction that the Christ had been a mystery woven through the OT, how better than to use scores of OT references as story elements. At the same time link it to contemporary events and offer an explanation for the loss of the Temple and the rites.
is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.
the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.
i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.
We are no longer discussing 'evidence' and that is ok. No one begrudges you the freedom of religion.
If however, I were to ask if you believe Jesus wears a toga, a golden crown and rides a white horse while swinging a sword, you probably would tell me no, that's symbolism and metaphor. Yet if I ask if Jesus wears a toga riding a donkey and stabbed with a sword, you will insist, yes, that is real. If one depiction is spiritual metaphor, why could not the other? You shared that ominous picture because for you it is powerful. Myth is powerful. There is nothing sacrilegious about understanding the Gospels as dramatization/metaphor. It is just a different conceptualization of Christianity than you are accustomed to.
is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.
the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.
i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.
Vidqun....It always comes down to that. Quiet your mind, open your heart and believe or face the consequences.
is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.
the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.
i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.
....treated as a local magician by his people.
That is the point of the story, his people do not recognize him for what and who he was.
Even the book of Mark portrays Jesus in a more realistic light than John.
You raise a good question; Do the supernatural aspects of Jesus grow with each retelling? (each successive Gospel). B. Ehrman takes that position as support for a historical Jesus. I see how he comes to that, but he is dismissing the writer's style of subtlety. The reader is to come to the conclusion just as the centurion does at the end of the story:
Certainly, this was God’s Son!
This apparently frustrated some copyists sufficiently that they added this identification in the opening verse. 1:1
The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, (the Son of God)
is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.
the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.
i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.
29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. 30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.
19 That Sunday evening[a] the disciples were meeting behind locked doors because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders. Suddenly, Jesus was standing there among them! “Peace be with you,” he said.
is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.
the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.
i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.
As a tangent, what evidence is there for a historical Socrates? Nearly everything thought to be known about him is drawn from Plato's dialogs. Problem is Plato uses Socrates as a literary foil, a mouthpiece. Plato's evolving depiction of Socrates is so evident some scholars believe they can divide Plato's works into early and later collections based upon it. Xenophon also used Socrates as a dialog character, but his depiction contradicts Plato's. The playwright Aristophanes alludes to him in mocking derision in his comedies. In short, we know nothing. A number of specialists have concluded Socrates was in reality a phantom, a purely literary character from a shared cultural consciousness; a meme using modern vernacular. That may be incorrect, but in any practical sense it doesn't matter.
For what it's worth I imagine Socrates as a historical person, why because he is merely depicted as smartass who answered questions with more questions. He didn't glow in the dark or turn water into wine.
is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.
the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.
i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.
ukpimo...Are Joseph Smith and Muhamed analogous to Jesus? Some have argued so, but others see a distinction. Jesus is described in divine terms throughout the story. He has supernatural abilities of passing through crowds and walls, he has ability to see the future and thoughts, he manipulates matter, he claims all god's attributes such as authority over life and forgiveness. While followers of Smith and Muhamed revere them for their proximity to the divine, they were not depicted as divine, supernatural beings. Jesus is more analogous to an Apollo or Shiva. Neither of whom are assumed historical despite their stories locating them on earth.
for those who still believe in god and the bible, how do you feel/think about the name jehovah now?
i am one who never wanted to bring reproach on god's name.
i will admit using the word jehovah now makes me feel rather icky...like i am promoting a lie of sorts.
The OP was asking about the feelings associated with the pronunciation "Jehovah".
Some of the responses so far reveal a deep attachment to the word. One of you outright said,
Jehovah's name is very important to me
That is hardly surprising. Years or decades of reciting and repeating the word has left many former JWs with a lingering fondness/attachment. A scholarly position makes clear that the name in usual form was a two-syllable word. This has been rehashed in great depth on this site. I'm of the opinion based upon the oldest extrabiblical evidence that the earliest form was a single syllable, Yah and likely a geographical element. However, a two syllabic form is certainly ancient and likely a theophoric reference to either his being a storm god "blow' or a 'jealous/passionate' one. There are scholarly arguments for both. It's possible, maybe even likely, they are both correct.
However, the issue for former JWs is not a simple scholarly debate. It's years of indoctrination and cultlike controls embodied in a single word that we thought identified us as special.
Every sect has a language unique to itself that serve as 'trigger words'. Trigger words are special words, or special use of words, that elicit feelings of loyalty, or identity. The word 'Jehovah' is perhaps the biggest example for former JWs. Many exit counselors recommend former members of high control groups avoid the use of trigger words. For that reason, many of use a mocking form of the word like 'Jehober' or for those attracted to scholarship, 'Yahweh'. It helps distance the topic from the emotional burden of the past.
is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.
the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.
i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.
I know it sounds insulting, but religion based upon physical people are idolizations. Religions drawn from spiritual conceptions, metaphor and symbolism are spiritual faiths.
The instructors of the ancient faiths of Egypt, the near east and the far east understood their stories of battling gods and miraculous births were dramatizations, colorful teaching tools to instill belief and fear of the unseen. Ironically literalizing Christians mistake their own as history while claiming a higher faith.
is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.
the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.
i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.
For if a person called Jesus Christ didn't exist at one stage, then Christians made themselves up from some literary fandom they created, which doesn't give much credibility to the fact that they had enemies who actively opposed them in the first century, including the Romans, who alluded to the fact they were followers of Jesus. So if the Jews were lying and the Romans were lying, my God maybe we should question if the Romans and the Jews back then ever existed!
You have formed multiple lines of 'evidence' from the same story for which there is no evidence occurred. Dr Julius No can't be used to prove the existence of James bond. Nor can the CIA or MI6. They are elements of the same story.
It seems many, including skeptics, have a hard time believing that the Jesus of the Gospels could have been an euhemerization (or possibly more accurately a dramatization) of a spirit being believed to have existed. This is strange to me. Numerous stories in the OT depict Yahweh as a guy walking around his garden, eating and talking with people. Most believers understand those stories as dramatizations. The Jews had enemies resulting from belief in Yahweh. That is not proof Yahweh walked around on earth. It's not difficult. Is not the same possible, even reasonable, for believers in a spirit Christ? The story is manifestly drawn from source OT source material, everything from the human name/s given him, his place of birth, to the stage setting on Mt of Olives, it's a dramatization.
