This seems a very useful contribution to my understanding, and a useful contribution to the Church. I have for some years read the conclusions and summaries of NT Wright, whilst passing through bookshops, and though, "Obvious to anyone reading the NT." Passing on has been easy, as I had not realized quite how much digging out of prepared position needed to be done to allow some in the Church to encounter Jesus. Tom Wright seems to have a good pick and shovel, may he continue to find Jesus!
he might be the super degree scholar, but he has not taught anything here, he has just ranted on assertion after assertion, never explained ANYTHING. a pathetic sermon and nothing more.
@sirdelrio Whatever you do, do not read any of NT Wright's works. Don't listen to any other "pathetic sermon" listed to your right. Do not investigate any other work by any other serious scholar on the topic on the identity of Jesus, His Resurrection, etc.... By all means, take a partial presentation, partitioned into an intended soundbite, academically speaking, and do continue to dismiss any other "super degree scholar" as "pathetic" on the basis of a 30 minute YT clip and "nothing more".
@NilDesperandum777 the lack of facts is evident. the rethorical spins are evident. and what makes you think i do not take this subject seriously, or that i do not posses a vast literature on the subject, by positions of all sorts, catholics, protestans, and critical scholars. he is pathetic, and you found this speech enlightening, so are you.
@sirdelrio You read as well as you listen. But others are pathetic? If you're basing your opinion on this soundbite, you're simply looking to lob baseless criticism. I notice you haven't mentioned actually having read any of his works. Possessing "vast literature" and "by positions of all sorts"...would said positions and literature come from "super degree scholars" by chance? We all need a little intellectual humility my friend. I suggest you stop claiming to know more than you demonstrate.
@NilDesperandum777 demonstrate... why should I? I'm getting tired of showing believers how to use the head straight. Maybe i should make generic mails, like the ones i have on physics for believers. And why are you trying to divert the discussion from what my original comment, which was accurate: this is a sermon, not a lecture, doesn't teach anything, has no facts, is full of codewords, and is ONLY assertions, never explanations.
@sirdelrio It is an explanation, a brief introduction into his work. That's the point. The fact that you don't understand the context, or regard his explanation, and his description is YOUR problem. I see English is your second language, but not so secondary that you can't distinguish the difference generalization and specific scholarly work. Listen, if you're going to call this man a fraud, and point to other scholars by contrast, you should at least be brave enough to list them.
@NilDesperandum777 sweetie, nobody fools me with a speech, i don't need you to patronize me that i'm uncapable to distinguish x from y. that i 'don't understand the context'. I know when someone is going through the path of indoctrination, and when in the path of teaching.
@sirdelrio Calling NT Wright pathetic renders your opinion as one characterized by indoctrination. You may disagree with Wright -- for reasons you can't explain in specificity -- but you should, in any event be able to point to something substantial. That you can't. That you think your opinion of this man is reflected in substance of this clip alone, is patently absurd. I think if you keyword "The Amazing Atheist" you'll find something a little more your speed, sport.
@sirdelrio Why yes. That's the only reasonable conclusion from observation. Oh, and because you still haven't despite repeated specific request...what other reason would I need? LOL
@sirdelrio What do you mean "codewords"? Wright is as plain as day. I take by "codewords" you mean that Wright exceeds your understanding. That's not his problem, friend. Again, who specifically do you hold as your three minute solution to NT Wright? Have you read one book by the man? You haven't answered whether or not you've watched or read anything else by Wright. If you haven't, you've been lazy and disingenuous in your criticism. If you have, your criticism is inaccurate. Which is it?
@NilDesperandum777 Wright exceeds my understanding. NOW IS TIME FOR THE LOL. A codeword is not mystery. Is a bit of jargon, a technical world, used to give the appearance of rigour, to varnish a speech with shining lack of findings.
@sirdelrio PhD. Former Bishop of Durham. Books by the cart load, but because you can't understand an elementary basic speech, he's "pathetic". Credibility just oozes out of you. Do you have an actual, specific criticism pertaining to Wright's speech here (because we know it's not elsewhere, given that you don't know anything else about him apparently) or are you just engaging in general insults because you're a militant atheist and don''t care what the point is whenever it's theistic?
@NilDesperandum777 I do care, believe me. That's why i hate this charlatan, because he has not explained anything, not given ANY conceptual construction that have lead him to his conclusions, he has asserted and preached the catholic doctrine.
@sirdelrio And how exactly is NT Wright a "charlatan"? Not explaining something to your satisfaction or ability to comprehend in this short blurb, ISN'T a legitimate reason to regard him or his contention (which you can't articulate, and HAVENT). That's not the definition of "charlatan". And as to preaching Catholic doctrine...which one? Where? In this video? At what juncture?
@sirdelrio Oh really? LOL. How so? Your grammar doesn't provoke envy in me. Your inability to cite a specific instance, even from this video doesn't give me pause to think, "My goodness that was a fantastic use of vaguery. I wonder if he/she will lend me some IQ points so as to be just as baseless." LOL...Seriously, you need to stop defending your pride, for the sake of your pride. Weren't you leaving, friend?
@sirdelrio Right. Grammar. It has nothing to do with intelligence. If you like, you can make up word, remove vowels, and all of it will be everyone's problem except yours. But anyone with a surplus of IQ points would know that surely. I mean, who needs a developed vernacular, right? As long as we all remain in common understanding that "codewords" are the real enemy, then grammar be damned, yes?
@sirdelrio What does your speaking Spanish have to do with me criticizing your English? Do you resort to that tactic when your opinion stated in English is offered? That's kind of weak-minded and cowardly isn't it? This is a video in English, by an Englishman to an English-speaking audience in a predominantly English-speaking country. No I don't speak Spanish as you do, is there some reason here that I need to?
@NilDesperandum777 yes it has to do. how can you be such a hypocrit! you said my grammar wasn't impressive. you are a canadian, i'm from colombia. english is not my native language, and i would surely kick your ass with my spanish, you were making a fool out of my english, which is not bad at all. And just because i don't 'want to' fill another wall with 10 messages like i'm used to, doesn't mean anything other than i don't want to discuss with 'this is the only possible conclusion' guy.
@sirdelrio But the point of this exchange is the criticism of this video. You don't get "close enough" in academic exchanges. You don't get an emotional pass because your English is "not bad". I'm not interested in giving you credit for an opinion that is articulated in such vague terms. I'm not here to cheer lead your development into the English language. Great, some people are impressed that your English is "not bad". Spanish has nothing to do with anything here, except perhaps your pride.
@NilDesperandum777 you used my english as evidence that i'm not that smart, that was an adhominem, and i put you in your place reminding you not to be such a coward hypocrit, because i cannot speak your language as you, as well as you can't speak mine as me. Don't be a hypocrit, don't straightjacket your assertion to your benefit.
@sirdelrio But, if you can't communicate a specific argument, in the language your audience understands, then your objective is compromised. Note, I'm not conversing in Spanish with you, because I don't possess proficiency enough to argue a point. The fact that you speak English secondarily isn'y my concern, any more than if we were on a football field, the contest is the contest . It's not hypocritical to point out blatant error. If you think it's ad Hominem, that's your problem, not mine.
@NilDesperandum777 oh, so i should shut up because english is not my native language or because your prose is so beautiful. Asshole. You used it meaning i couldn't be smart if my english was not that impressive to you. your words.
@sirdelrio Nope. The point is this. Your lack of proficiency isn't my problem. When you start criticizing an argument,and then buffer your criticism with terms like "codewords" it demonstrated that you do not have a sufficient grasp of the terms being used. Your intelligence, whatever it may be in other areas, isn't in question, your conclusions on this video are. I mean, what type of moron actually claims to be a genius on one hand and yet concludes on the basis of a YT video? Get real.
@NilDesperandum777 after the first 8 minutes or so i already didn't care much about what he had to say. Now i'm listening with all atention: THIS IS A LECTURE ABOUT INERRANTISM AND LITERALISM
@NilDesperandum777 ok, so i was not wrong, this is not scholar work, it is a speech, a sermon. You lose. And it's pathetic because it does not give ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT. It just dwells on indoctrination with a beautiful narative.
@sirdelrio How would I lose, friendo? I repeatedlt asked you to base your conclusions on sound evidence to the charge that NT Wright was a charlatan, or "pathetic" and you haven't because you're simply not informed about the man, to which you've already admitted. You've simply stuck around so as to not give the appearance of "losing". But, that happened a loooooong time ago. NT Wright has several books with numerous arguments. But hey, you know better. So, is NTW a Catholic?
@NilDesperandum777 AT 24:00 "and this can be asked as a matter of historical investigation. and the purspose of such investigation, i will go on repeating it, is not to replace the canon with a historian's recontruction, but to offer a hypothesis to explain what the church has not explained". IT COULDN'T GET ANY MORE PATHETIC THAN THAT. IT COULD NOT BE ANY MORE DOGMATIC.
@sirdelrio So for you, credible Christian scholarship would be scholarship that undermines it's own academic and historical foundation for the sake academic integrity that only manifests itself, if it disproves it's own nexus? That's like going to a taco stand and complaining to the vendor that in order for them to remain authentically Mexican, that they should begin to wrap wiener schnitzel in taco shells. I realize it's harder for Atheists to take ground these days, but please, try harder.
@NilDesperandum777 "So for you, credible Christian scholarship would be scholarship that undermines it's own academic and historical foundation for the sake academic integrity." NO, WELL, KIND OF. CREDIBLE SCHOLARSHIP DOES NOT START FROM A CONCLUSION, OR A DOGMA. END OF STORY. NT IS PATHETIC, AND SO ARE YOU, TRUSTING THIS STUFF, WITHOUT CONSIDERING CONTRARY ARGUMENTATION, NOT FROM ME, FROM CRITICAL SCHOLARS. I'VE HEARD NT, HAVE YOU HEARD CRITICAL SCHOLARS?
@sirdelrio Again, you're incapable of seeing the obvious. You're judging a man on the basis of 1) A speech to his peers, not the layman or the uninitiated. Ergo, it's no intended to be a thesis defence. 2) You admitted having not been familiar with his works. Ergo, it would be definitively prejudicial for you to render a conclusion based on a lack of evidence, and one might say a lack of credible filters on your part. Are these points that difficult for you to see? They apply in any situation.
@NilDesperandum777 i don't need to read hovind's books to know what he's made of. At least guys like william lane craig do deserve attention. but NT doesn't
@sirdelrio Bringing up Hovind as Wright is concerned holds importance for you in what way? Dawkins is a horrible embarrassment to credible Atheistic philosophy...and my point re: NT Wright is?
If you think Hovind is comparable to Wright and/or Lane Craig, I'm wasting my time discussing anything with you. Are you actually a person of serious interest or are you going to start quoting Hovind as the Christian representative all discussion long? If that's the case I'll reply with any number of non-theists and we can call it a day. And if you think Hovind is a serious critique, let me again invite you to read an actual Christian scholar, amongst whom, Wright is a good one.
@NilDesperandum777 I DON'T WANT NT TO DISPROVE CHRISTIANITY, I JUST WISHED HE DIDN'T START TRYING TO PROVE IT RIGHT, WHICH IS WHAT HE'S DOING. AND ATHEISTS TRYING HARDER??? DON'T BE SUCH A HYPOCRIT, DUDE, YOUR WHOLE CHANNEL IS FILLED WITH SUBSCRIPTIONS TO CHRISTIAN STUFF. VERY CRITICAL! VERY IN PURSUIT OF TRUTH!
@sirdelrio Again. Locate his works. Read them. Then opine. My point, was that your criticism of NT Wright, is baseless, in that you don't know his work. It's as elementary a concept as going to school with pants on.
@NilDesperandum777 what else do you want?? i already gave you something. NT is building his unbiased 'reconstruction' of jesus, taking every bit narrated in the gospels as sober reliable historical portrayals. That is being an inerrantist. Maybe for your aspie genius literal mindset, inerrantism is thinking THE WHOLE bible is correct. But it doesn't take all that to be an inerrantist. Just start by assuming the gospels are history and you are an inerrantist. because it can be shown they're not.
@sirdelrio Starting from the front and assuming one thing or another about me is silly. I asked you to define which type of inerrantism you referred to..did you simply skip that? Note, you havent asked me what I believe in, nor queried anything remotely interested in an honest investigation. And that's the point that you apparently refuse to see or simply are unable to see. Until you have a reasonable deposit of facts on any given thing, you should render your conclusions as undecided.
@NilDesperandum777 "So is NT Wright Catholic?" do you have asperger's syndrome?? can you abstract something beyond a literal meaning? could you recognize similarities in apparently different things? it has a creed, stablish by councils, foundational theologians, it has clergy, a maximal authority, liturgy. It's an exotic catholicism.
@sirdelrio "Asperger's syndrome" ? So on top of being unable to admit that you're conclusions are intellectually baseless (given that you didn't know Wright's work and judged him and his value on the basis of a speech to his discipline's crowd), you're also prejudice towards peoples with disabilities? Impressive, amigo. To wit, and like Wright's gravitas as a scholar of theology and ancient history, is the fact that a number of fantastically gifted people had Asperger's. Good job, sport (Cont.)
@sirdelrio Right, because you citing the possibility of someone having a disability is so passe. We'll chalk it up to a linguistic deficiency on my part.
@sirdelrio Right. Sure. OK. Maybe you need to simply accept appropriate criticism rather than continue to fight tooth and nail for some imaginary intellectual standing you believe you possess. Insulting someone on the basis of a disability is crude. Do you...simply not "get that" ?
@NilDesperandum777 but let's put NT aside, let's debate the subject. Do you think the gospels are historical portrayals of a living man? what do you have to say about pagan parallels? after analysing the resurrection narratives, doesn't it look like a mythification of a tale? what about the construction of the canon? what about the events narrated that nobody could have witnessed? have you asked yourself why is pilate in the creed?
@sirdelrio Fair enough: 1) "Do you think the gospels are historical portrayals of a living man?" By "living man" you mean Jesus Christ? 2) "what do you have to say about pagan parallels? " Quite a bit. Horus, et all are easily dismantled. Hopefully you're not using Zeitgeist as your source material. 3) "after analysing the resurrection narratives, doesn't it look like a mythification of a tale?" Not at all. In fact it appears the opposite.4)"what about the construction of the canon? " (Cont.)
@sirdelrio (From cont.) 4) "what about the construction of the canon? " Be more specific. 5)"what about the events narrated that nobody could have witnessed?" Again, you'll have to be more specific. 6) "have you asked yourself why is pilate in the creed?" All events and persons affiliated with the life and death and resurrection of Christ would be accounted for. It's worthy to note that Pilate was a real procurator listed by extra Bibilcal sources. But what is your point?
@sirdelrio (From Cont.) On "exotic catholicism" (big "C" or little "c", conceptually speaking?) , well given that you've abstracted Wright's actual academic worth with your worldview comfort levels, I suspect "shock" wouldnt be the right word to describe the kind of aimless mental gymnastics required to again, fit facts to your conclusions. Apart from citing the obvious ie a Bishop erring on the side of inerrantism (though to what extent you never clarified), the question is begged...
@NilDesperandum777 now i see how to deal with you. it's not really possible. you will spin. or get literal when offered analogies, or demand precise definitions: ok, if a scholar takes the gospel as reliable history, i'm not the one fitting the facts to my preffered conclusions. If NT thinks the gospels are journalism, he's just naive as so are you. Want arguments. Go to critical scholars.
@sirdelrio So you've proved my question by essentially answering in the affirmative that in order for a Christian scholar to be credible, he or she must essentially undermine Christian theology. I'll add, your criticism of Wright being pathetic without you having a working knowledge of his work was demonstrative of extreme prejudice before...this on the other hand is an entirely new division of willful prejudice. And you actually prance about calling yourself a genius? Por favour.
@NilDesperandum777 "in order for a Christian scholar to be credible, he or she must essentially undermine Christian theology." NOOOO. I particularly think christianity is false. But i do not demand of you to start trying to prove it false. BUT TO START WITHOUT BIAS!!
@sirdelrio So you want a Christian to remove his point of view for the sake of developing his point of view? that makes no sense, friend. I think what you're doing is conflating the notion that to support the Gospels is to be dogmatic without rigor. That's not the case in The Catholic (and Orthodox) Church and it's not the case with NT wright. If you'd investigate his scholarship you'd find this out, but alas...If you'll recall, Christ's Apostles began with severe incredulity.
@NilDesperandum777 you've been making a strawman out of me. Did i say i do not care about language, or did you infer i do not know anything about it from my lack of elegant prose because english is my 2nd language. To be honest, i have flexibilized my style with time, to be less of a bore, to communicate with a wider audience. If you read any of my other comments on youtube, maybe one of my record votes, you'd see that the one making extrapolations about single events is not only me, you too.
@sirdelrio In fact, you did. Your frivolous use of words such as "pathetic", "charlatan" , "codewords" etc, and the constant wrestle to have you provide one single cited criticism from this video clip in minutes and seconds leaves any serious thinking person to conclude, that you do not have a sincere concern for being accurate and accountable for the words, terms and conclusions you offer. As to the rest, I don't care. This is an English-speaking video. Criticize all you want, but be prepared.
@sirdelrio You know who he is from a 34 minute generalized speech, and from that, the man's life work is "pathetic"? Please. You're full of it. You're pretending. It's why you don't have a specific, pointed criticism. You're a militant atheist bent on stirring the pot. In that -- Bravo!
@sirdelrio You criticized this speech with ambiguity, and rendered this man as a "charlatan" and as "pathetic". And that actually demonstrates, that you didn't understand this small, edited, sample, AND, that you're emotionally given to the most unscientific endeavour, which is to take the smallest sample size and render a conclusion based on an obvious dearth of evidence ie, you dont know anything else aside from this video, and if only this video existed, your criticism would still be absurd.
@sirdelrio I think what you're used to, are people who, when you throw around basic terms like "summa" don't counter a point you're making. Well, to say that your general criticism, that has no actual specific criticism from demonstration, and to say that that, is your , "Summa" (as though that would ever be applicable) is INSANE. Stop posing! How can you have a "treatise" without being able to name a specific point, and at that attach ownership of said "Summa" to an edited YT video!? LOL
@NilDesperandum777 i don't need to explain anything to you, specially if you think this is "the only reasonable conclusion". The gift of knowledge is for the one who seeks it, i don't think you are of that kind. NT Wright! you gotta be kidding.
@sirdelrio Actually, I'd thank you for a coherent specific example of legitimate criticism from this video, because again, we know confidently, you know nothing of NT Wright aside from this video, addressed to audience already "in the know". But because you, a random YT viewer with no familiarity on Wright aside from this edited video, ergo, he must be a "charlatan". Again, what do you specifically cite as your reason for this criticism?
@sirdelrio "Reasonable" and "conclusion" should not be paired by you in this conversation. "Emotional" and "conviction" and "prejudice", now those are suitable partners in your..."Summa".
@NilDesperandum777 This is a devotional lecture, and i just realized he's pretty much an inerrantist, kind of odd for a catholic. There you have your scholar. "we just need to restrict to the text, we don't need to go beyond the text".
@sirdelrio Well, at one point you stated it wasn't a lecture, that it was a sermon. And now you're calling it a devotional lecture. Now I realize you don't want to be obligated to any real position that requires you to provide an explanation, but sorry, amigo, you'll need to take one position and stay with it. As for just "realizing" he's an inerrantist, do you mean , you just quoted someone on that opinion? Why do YOU say this of Wright? And as for the oddity of a Catholic...(Cont)
@NilDesperandum777 "at one point you stated it wasn't a lecture, that it was a sermon. And now you're calling it a devotional lecture". OMG, is this all you have?
@sirdelrio Oh, of course, lol. It's "all I have", amigo. Disregard repeated request for singular citation. Disregard to constant correction. Disregard the chain of comments below that question and dissect your inability to actually defend your position apart from the fact that you "think" you're intellectually gifted and that I should simply take your opinion as gospel. I mean...are you mentally ill, or is the language gap that wide? Which begs the question, how can you criticize "codewords"?
@NilDesperandum777 i don't think it, it's a fact. I am gifted, my IQ is 162 (which could be a lie, but my job and my hobbies kind of support it). Maybe i don't care to discuss with you about arguments that an inerrantist has not given. If he's not willing to discuss the text, if he's going to directly make psychoanalysis of the wizard of oz not caring about history and philology, then there's nothing to discuss.
@NilDesperandum777 requesting citations is nothing, and i gave it. constant correction?? what correction, that he's an anglican? that's pretty much catholic exotica. My inability to defend my position? my refusal to give you an answer. And haven't you ever heard code word before? i'm sorry i meant buzzword.
@NilDesperandum777 the quotes were his. at 6:23 he virtually shows his inerrantism, well not inerrantism, but his lack of criticism on the integrity of the text, its origin, its possible authorship, it veracity.
@sirdelrio So which is it? Inerrantism or not? And how does not professing here in this video, of a criticism of Scripture's integrity from a historical perspective count as evidence of a lack of integrity? He's an ancient historical scholar. His opinon on Scripture's integrity is well documented. In fact copiously documented in academic publication. But you apparently are so smart, that no examination of a scholar's published work need be reviewed. Have you sold this idea to Universities yet?
@NilDesperandum777 when i change my words, don't be so confident, you are not making me hestitate, i'm being precise. Aahhh, an argument from authority now.
@sirdelrio AGAIN -- if you base your criticism on this video, it is baseless. You are calling a world reninown Biblical scholar without having a working understanding of the scope of his historical spadework. It would be like me criticizing your Spanish on the basis of your English. Is this so hard to grasp?
@sirdelrio (From Cont.)....And as for the oddity of a Catholic. Well a few things. NT Wright is an Anglican Bishop. Not quite Catholic in perfect theological consideration, but getting there. And if he was perfectly Catholic, which he isn't, his statement "we just need to restrict to the text, we don't need to go beyond the text" would be qualified as evidence of sufficiency to the point being made, not sufficiency in the universal understanding of the Church's deposit of faith.
@NilDesperandum777 "would be qualified as evidence of sufficiency to the point being made" get the fuck outta here. You are the one who cannot follow the content of a speech.
@sirdelrio Of course I can. You can't. And if you think you "suddenly realizing" that Wright and inerrantism go hand in hand, I have some icebergs to sell you in Columbia. You Googled away during your time here. You believe Wright to be Catholic as you mentioned? On what basis? And how would you "suddenly realize" inerrantism defined as? And how does someone who cite his opinion as a "Summa" criticize a man as prolific as Wright, without reading a single work? LOL
@NilDesperandum777 i will read his works, when his speaches, lectures or sermons promise something. and this one shows nothing. A man telling me the city of oz is real becuase here is the story.
@NilDesperandum777 what? isn't that what you're doing with your "only logical conclusion"? is this history? acts grinding? hypothesis and falsification?
@NilDesperandum777 the more i listen: this is not history, this is rethoric, this is preaching. NOT ONE ARGUMENT. ASSERTIONS. BUZZWORDS. CAN'T YOU SEE IT. OF COURSE YOU CAN'T. YOU'RE SOO THRILLED WITH THIS CRAP.
@sirdelrio "The more I listen". Ah, so you finally admit you didn't fully listen to the speech? And...you do realize this is a speech -- as I already mentioned -- to a crowd of people with a certain working knowledge. This wasn't meant to be a speech to the unintended per se. Again, try cracking open a few books.
@sirdelrio "Try crack opening" ? Uhm, lol...seems like you've "opening" some "crack" already. It's not an "opening" roster Im trying to crack, friendo. "Crack open" , "Cracking open" both will due...Friendo. :)
@NilDesperandum777 i do not need to listen to a whole seminar of kent hovind to realize what he has to say. Specially when i'm not a blank canvas on which he's going to insert his church stuff.
@sirdelrio LOL. Of course you have. Lord knows, N.T. Wright is no "real scholar". LOL. And who would these "real scholars" be, that three minutes in their presence leaves one so illuminated?
@NilDesperandum777 and now you are resorting to ad hominems. and trying to charicaturize me. Being a scholar, at least for me, is not having a PhD, is finding knowledge, not preaching already existing knowledge.
@NilDesperandum777 my entire criticism? i said he hasn't taught anything, that's not an offense. I said he just asserted stuff, that's not an offense. I said it was a sermon, that's not an offense. I said he is pathetic, there is the ofense. And what would i criticize here?? what has he said??? what argument has he given???
This seems a very useful contribution to my understanding, and a useful contribution to the Church. I have for some years read the conclusions and summaries of NT Wright, whilst passing through bookshops, and though, "Obvious to anyone reading the NT." Passing on has been easy, as I had not realized quite how much digging out of prepared position needed to be done to allow some in the Church to encounter Jesus. Tom Wright seems to have a good pick and shovel, may he continue to find Jesus!
mattdeany1 3 months ago
he might be the super degree scholar, but he has not taught anything here, he has just ranted on assertion after assertion, never explained ANYTHING. a pathetic sermon and nothing more.
sirdelrio 5 months ago
@sirdelrio Whatever you do, do not read any of NT Wright's works. Don't listen to any other "pathetic sermon" listed to your right. Do not investigate any other work by any other serious scholar on the topic on the identity of Jesus, His Resurrection, etc.... By all means, take a partial presentation, partitioned into an intended soundbite, academically speaking, and do continue to dismiss any other "super degree scholar" as "pathetic" on the basis of a 30 minute YT clip and "nothing more".
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 the lack of facts is evident. the rethorical spins are evident. and what makes you think i do not take this subject seriously, or that i do not posses a vast literature on the subject, by positions of all sorts, catholics, protestans, and critical scholars. he is pathetic, and you found this speech enlightening, so are you.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio You read as well as you listen. But others are pathetic? If you're basing your opinion on this soundbite, you're simply looking to lob baseless criticism. I notice you haven't mentioned actually having read any of his works. Possessing "vast literature" and "by positions of all sorts"...would said positions and literature come from "super degree scholars" by chance? We all need a little intellectual humility my friend. I suggest you stop claiming to know more than you demonstrate.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 demonstrate... why should I? I'm getting tired of showing believers how to use the head straight. Maybe i should make generic mails, like the ones i have on physics for believers. And why are you trying to divert the discussion from what my original comment, which was accurate: this is a sermon, not a lecture, doesn't teach anything, has no facts, is full of codewords, and is ONLY assertions, never explanations.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio It is an explanation, a brief introduction into his work. That's the point. The fact that you don't understand the context, or regard his explanation, and his description is YOUR problem. I see English is your second language, but not so secondary that you can't distinguish the difference generalization and specific scholarly work. Listen, if you're going to call this man a fraud, and point to other scholars by contrast, you should at least be brave enough to list them.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 sweetie, nobody fools me with a speech, i don't need you to patronize me that i'm uncapable to distinguish x from y. that i 'don't understand the context'. I know when someone is going through the path of indoctrination, and when in the path of teaching.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Calling NT Wright pathetic renders your opinion as one characterized by indoctrination. You may disagree with Wright -- for reasons you can't explain in specificity -- but you should, in any event be able to point to something substantial. That you can't. That you think your opinion of this man is reflected in substance of this clip alone, is patently absurd. I think if you keyword "The Amazing Atheist" you'll find something a little more your speed, sport.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 how do you know that i can't?????????????????? because i haven't?
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Why yes. That's the only reasonable conclusion from observation. Oh, and because you still haven't despite repeated specific request...what other reason would I need? LOL
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 the only reasonable conclusion. good bye moron.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio And still, no specific criticism. Great job, sport. ;)
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
Comment removed
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 my speed, ha.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 if you arrive to sunday school in your historical study, that's pathetic.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio What do you mean "codewords"? Wright is as plain as day. I take by "codewords" you mean that Wright exceeds your understanding. That's not his problem, friend. Again, who specifically do you hold as your three minute solution to NT Wright? Have you read one book by the man? You haven't answered whether or not you've watched or read anything else by Wright. If you haven't, you've been lazy and disingenuous in your criticism. If you have, your criticism is inaccurate. Which is it?
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 Wright exceeds my understanding. NOW IS TIME FOR THE LOL. A codeword is not mystery. Is a bit of jargon, a technical world, used to give the appearance of rigour, to varnish a speech with shining lack of findings.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio PhD. Former Bishop of Durham. Books by the cart load, but because you can't understand an elementary basic speech, he's "pathetic". Credibility just oozes out of you. Do you have an actual, specific criticism pertaining to Wright's speech here (because we know it's not elsewhere, given that you don't know anything else about him apparently) or are you just engaging in general insults because you're a militant atheist and don''t care what the point is whenever it's theistic?
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 "I can't understand", oh my god.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 I do care, believe me. That's why i hate this charlatan, because he has not explained anything, not given ANY conceptual construction that have lead him to his conclusions, he has asserted and preached the catholic doctrine.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio And how exactly is NT Wright a "charlatan"? Not explaining something to your satisfaction or ability to comprehend in this short blurb, ISN'T a legitimate reason to regard him or his contention (which you can't articulate, and HAVENT). That's not the definition of "charlatan". And as to preaching Catholic doctrine...which one? Where? In this video? At what juncture?
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 ability to comprehend!! i could lend you a couple of point in my IQ and still be gifted.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Oh really? LOL. How so? Your grammar doesn't provoke envy in me. Your inability to cite a specific instance, even from this video doesn't give me pause to think, "My goodness that was a fantastic use of vaguery. I wonder if he/she will lend me some IQ points so as to be just as baseless." LOL...Seriously, you need to stop defending your pride, for the sake of your pride. Weren't you leaving, friend?
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 my grammar, whatever.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Right. Grammar. It has nothing to do with intelligence. If you like, you can make up word, remove vowels, and all of it will be everyone's problem except yours. But anyone with a surplus of IQ points would know that surely. I mean, who needs a developed vernacular, right? As long as we all remain in common understanding that "codewords" are the real enemy, then grammar be damned, yes?
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 and why are you attacking my english, do you speak spanish as i do?
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio What does your speaking Spanish have to do with me criticizing your English? Do you resort to that tactic when your opinion stated in English is offered? That's kind of weak-minded and cowardly isn't it? This is a video in English, by an Englishman to an English-speaking audience in a predominantly English-speaking country. No I don't speak Spanish as you do, is there some reason here that I need to?
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 yes it has to do. how can you be such a hypocrit! you said my grammar wasn't impressive. you are a canadian, i'm from colombia. english is not my native language, and i would surely kick your ass with my spanish, you were making a fool out of my english, which is not bad at all. And just because i don't 'want to' fill another wall with 10 messages like i'm used to, doesn't mean anything other than i don't want to discuss with 'this is the only possible conclusion' guy.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio But the point of this exchange is the criticism of this video. You don't get "close enough" in academic exchanges. You don't get an emotional pass because your English is "not bad". I'm not interested in giving you credit for an opinion that is articulated in such vague terms. I'm not here to cheer lead your development into the English language. Great, some people are impressed that your English is "not bad". Spanish has nothing to do with anything here, except perhaps your pride.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 you used my english as evidence that i'm not that smart, that was an adhominem, and i put you in your place reminding you not to be such a coward hypocrit, because i cannot speak your language as you, as well as you can't speak mine as me. Don't be a hypocrit, don't straightjacket your assertion to your benefit.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio But, if you can't communicate a specific argument, in the language your audience understands, then your objective is compromised. Note, I'm not conversing in Spanish with you, because I don't possess proficiency enough to argue a point. The fact that you speak English secondarily isn'y my concern, any more than if we were on a football field, the contest is the contest . It's not hypocritical to point out blatant error. If you think it's ad Hominem, that's your problem, not mine.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 give me ONE SINGLE argument that he gave here. ONE
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio and i don't mean logical sillogisms, an elaboration, an idea built from facts and inferences. ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 oh, so i should shut up because english is not my native language or because your prose is so beautiful. Asshole. You used it meaning i couldn't be smart if my english was not that impressive to you. your words.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Nope. The point is this. Your lack of proficiency isn't my problem. When you start criticizing an argument,and then buffer your criticism with terms like "codewords" it demonstrated that you do not have a sufficient grasp of the terms being used. Your intelligence, whatever it may be in other areas, isn't in question, your conclusions on this video are. I mean, what type of moron actually claims to be a genius on one hand and yet concludes on the basis of a YT video? Get real.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 after the first 8 minutes or so i already didn't care much about what he had to say. Now i'm listening with all atention: THIS IS A LECTURE ABOUT INERRANTISM AND LITERALISM
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Caring has nothing to do with sound analysis. Are you sure it was a "1" beside the "62"?
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 62 what? give me one.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio I wrote in reference to your I! score. Again. The language barrier.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 yeah, and my IQ score is not necessarily reflected in my english.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Or your conclusions thus far, I agree.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Edit: IQ score
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 this is not a lecture about history, is a lecture about the sociology of the wizard of oz.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio No it's not, but, hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, this speech can be about whatever you like, amigo.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 ok, so i was not wrong, this is not scholar work, it is a speech, a sermon. You lose. And it's pathetic because it does not give ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT. It just dwells on indoctrination with a beautiful narative.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio How would I lose, friendo? I repeatedlt asked you to base your conclusions on sound evidence to the charge that NT Wright was a charlatan, or "pathetic" and you haven't because you're simply not informed about the man, to which you've already admitted. You've simply stuck around so as to not give the appearance of "losing". But, that happened a loooooong time ago. NT Wright has several books with numerous arguments. But hey, you know better. So, is NTW a Catholic?
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NilDesperandum777 show me i'm wrong, IS THIS HISTORY, ISN'T HE PREACHING?
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 AT 24:00 "and this can be asked as a matter of historical investigation. and the purspose of such investigation, i will go on repeating it, is not to replace the canon with a historian's recontruction, but to offer a hypothesis to explain what the church has not explained". IT COULDN'T GET ANY MORE PATHETIC THAN THAT. IT COULD NOT BE ANY MORE DOGMATIC.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio So for you, credible Christian scholarship would be scholarship that undermines it's own academic and historical foundation for the sake academic integrity that only manifests itself, if it disproves it's own nexus? That's like going to a taco stand and complaining to the vendor that in order for them to remain authentically Mexican, that they should begin to wrap wiener schnitzel in taco shells. I realize it's harder for Atheists to take ground these days, but please, try harder.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 "So for you, credible Christian scholarship would be scholarship that undermines it's own academic and historical foundation for the sake academic integrity." NO, WELL, KIND OF. CREDIBLE SCHOLARSHIP DOES NOT START FROM A CONCLUSION, OR A DOGMA. END OF STORY. NT IS PATHETIC, AND SO ARE YOU, TRUSTING THIS STUFF, WITHOUT CONSIDERING CONTRARY ARGUMENTATION, NOT FROM ME, FROM CRITICAL SCHOLARS. I'VE HEARD NT, HAVE YOU HEARD CRITICAL SCHOLARS?
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Again, you're incapable of seeing the obvious. You're judging a man on the basis of 1) A speech to his peers, not the layman or the uninitiated. Ergo, it's no intended to be a thesis defence. 2) You admitted having not been familiar with his works. Ergo, it would be definitively prejudicial for you to render a conclusion based on a lack of evidence, and one might say a lack of credible filters on your part. Are these points that difficult for you to see? They apply in any situation.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 i don't need to read hovind's books to know what he's made of. At least guys like william lane craig do deserve attention. but NT doesn't
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Bringing up Hovind as Wright is concerned holds importance for you in what way? Dawkins is a horrible embarrassment to credible Atheistic philosophy...and my point re: NT Wright is?
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 You're right, dawkins is an embarrasment, so is NT.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Yes, but I've actually read Dawkins and can opine with an informed opinion. You can't on Wright, right? Ergo...
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
If you think Hovind is comparable to Wright and/or Lane Craig, I'm wasting my time discussing anything with you. Are you actually a person of serious interest or are you going to start quoting Hovind as the Christian representative all discussion long? If that's the case I'll reply with any number of non-theists and we can call it a day. And if you think Hovind is a serious critique, let me again invite you to read an actual Christian scholar, amongst whom, Wright is a good one.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 I DON'T WANT NT TO DISPROVE CHRISTIANITY, I JUST WISHED HE DIDN'T START TRYING TO PROVE IT RIGHT, WHICH IS WHAT HE'S DOING. AND ATHEISTS TRYING HARDER??? DON'T BE SUCH A HYPOCRIT, DUDE, YOUR WHOLE CHANNEL IS FILLED WITH SUBSCRIPTIONS TO CHRISTIAN STUFF. VERY CRITICAL! VERY IN PURSUIT OF TRUTH!
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 GIVE ME ONE, ONE, ONE, ONE, ONE, ONE ARGUMENT NT RIGHT POSED OR EVEN HINTED AT HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Again. Locate his works. Read them. Then opine. My point, was that your criticism of NT Wright, is baseless, in that you don't know his work. It's as elementary a concept as going to school with pants on.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 what else do you want?? i already gave you something. NT is building his unbiased 'reconstruction' of jesus, taking every bit narrated in the gospels as sober reliable historical portrayals. That is being an inerrantist. Maybe for your aspie genius literal mindset, inerrantism is thinking THE WHOLE bible is correct. But it doesn't take all that to be an inerrantist. Just start by assuming the gospels are history and you are an inerrantist. because it can be shown they're not.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Starting from the front and assuming one thing or another about me is silly. I asked you to define which type of inerrantism you referred to..did you simply skip that? Note, you havent asked me what I believe in, nor queried anything remotely interested in an honest investigation. And that's the point that you apparently refuse to see or simply are unable to see. Until you have a reasonable deposit of facts on any given thing, you should render your conclusions as undecided.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 i have confronted you already, let's discuss the new testament.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 help me sleep at night. That's so ironical. I LITERALLY do not sleep listening to biblical scholars.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio So is NT Wright Catholic?
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 "So is NT Wright Catholic?" do you have asperger's syndrome?? can you abstract something beyond a literal meaning? could you recognize similarities in apparently different things? it has a creed, stablish by councils, foundational theologians, it has clergy, a maximal authority, liturgy. It's an exotic catholicism.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio "Asperger's syndrome" ? So on top of being unable to admit that you're conclusions are intellectually baseless (given that you didn't know Wright's work and judged him and his value on the basis of a speech to his discipline's crowd), you're also prejudice towards peoples with disabilities? Impressive, amigo. To wit, and like Wright's gravitas as a scholar of theology and ancient history, is the fact that a number of fantastically gifted people had Asperger's. Good job, sport (Cont.)
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 "prejudice towards peoples with disabilities"??? (sighhhh)
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Right, because you citing the possibility of someone having a disability is so passe. We'll chalk it up to a linguistic deficiency on my part.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 very nice spin on the asperger, way to evade your literary reading of contrary comments.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Right. Sure. OK. Maybe you need to simply accept appropriate criticism rather than continue to fight tooth and nail for some imaginary intellectual standing you believe you possess. Insulting someone on the basis of a disability is crude. Do you...simply not "get that" ?
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 but let's put NT aside, let's debate the subject. Do you think the gospels are historical portrayals of a living man? what do you have to say about pagan parallels? after analysing the resurrection narratives, doesn't it look like a mythification of a tale? what about the construction of the canon? what about the events narrated that nobody could have witnessed? have you asked yourself why is pilate in the creed?
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Fair enough: 1) "Do you think the gospels are historical portrayals of a living man?" By "living man" you mean Jesus Christ? 2) "what do you have to say about pagan parallels? " Quite a bit. Horus, et all are easily dismantled. Hopefully you're not using Zeitgeist as your source material. 3) "after analysing the resurrection narratives, doesn't it look like a mythification of a tale?" Not at all. In fact it appears the opposite.4)"what about the construction of the canon? " (Cont.)
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@sirdelrio (From cont.) 4) "what about the construction of the canon? " Be more specific. 5)"what about the events narrated that nobody could have witnessed?" Again, you'll have to be more specific. 6) "have you asked yourself why is pilate in the creed?" All events and persons affiliated with the life and death and resurrection of Christ would be accounted for. It's worthy to note that Pilate was a real procurator listed by extra Bibilcal sources. But what is your point?
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@sirdelrio (From Cont.) On "exotic catholicism" (big "C" or little "c", conceptually speaking?) , well given that you've abstracted Wright's actual academic worth with your worldview comfort levels, I suspect "shock" wouldnt be the right word to describe the kind of aimless mental gymnastics required to again, fit facts to your conclusions. Apart from citing the obvious ie a Bishop erring on the side of inerrantism (though to what extent you never clarified), the question is begged...
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 now i see how to deal with you. it's not really possible. you will spin. or get literal when offered analogies, or demand precise definitions: ok, if a scholar takes the gospel as reliable history, i'm not the one fitting the facts to my preffered conclusions. If NT thinks the gospels are journalism, he's just naive as so are you. Want arguments. Go to critical scholars.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio So you've proved my question by essentially answering in the affirmative that in order for a Christian scholar to be credible, he or she must essentially undermine Christian theology. I'll add, your criticism of Wright being pathetic without you having a working knowledge of his work was demonstrative of extreme prejudice before...this on the other hand is an entirely new division of willful prejudice. And you actually prance about calling yourself a genius? Por favour.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 "in order for a Christian scholar to be credible, he or she must essentially undermine Christian theology." NOOOO. I particularly think christianity is false. But i do not demand of you to start trying to prove it false. BUT TO START WITHOUT BIAS!!
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio So you want a Christian to remove his point of view for the sake of developing his point of view? that makes no sense, friend. I think what you're doing is conflating the notion that to support the Gospels is to be dogmatic without rigor. That's not the case in The Catholic (and Orthodox) Church and it's not the case with NT wright. If you'd investigate his scholarship you'd find this out, but alas...If you'll recall, Christ's Apostles began with severe incredulity.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 you've been making a strawman out of me. Did i say i do not care about language, or did you infer i do not know anything about it from my lack of elegant prose because english is my 2nd language. To be honest, i have flexibilized my style with time, to be less of a bore, to communicate with a wider audience. If you read any of my other comments on youtube, maybe one of my record votes, you'd see that the one making extrapolations about single events is not only me, you too.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio In fact, you did. Your frivolous use of words such as "pathetic", "charlatan" , "codewords" etc, and the constant wrestle to have you provide one single cited criticism from this video clip in minutes and seconds leaves any serious thinking person to conclude, that you do not have a sincere concern for being accurate and accountable for the words, terms and conclusions you offer. As to the rest, I don't care. This is an English-speaking video. Criticize all you want, but be prepared.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 i have stopped arguing with you. back then i left.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Of course, you did. "Back then" when you "left".
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 i know who he is, and his master output of preaching.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio You know who he is from a 34 minute generalized speech, and from that, the man's life work is "pathetic"? Please. You're full of it. You're pretending. It's why you don't have a specific, pointed criticism. You're a militant atheist bent on stirring the pot. In that -- Bravo!
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 i criticized THIS speech. which is pathetic, a mere sermon, presented as scholarship.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio You criticized this speech with ambiguity, and rendered this man as a "charlatan" and as "pathetic". And that actually demonstrates, that you didn't understand this small, edited, sample, AND, that you're emotionally given to the most unscientific endeavour, which is to take the smallest sample size and render a conclusion based on an obvious dearth of evidence ie, you dont know anything else aside from this video, and if only this video existed, your criticism would still be absurd.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 you don't need to watch a whole seminar by kent hovind to realize that he is a charlatan.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio And still, not a single specific criticism, minute and second of THIS video, on NT Wright. I'm shocked.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 to say this is a sermon is my summa. perhaps too much for you.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio I think what you're used to, are people who, when you throw around basic terms like "summa" don't counter a point you're making. Well, to say that your general criticism, that has no actual specific criticism from demonstration, and to say that that, is your , "Summa" (as though that would ever be applicable) is INSANE. Stop posing! How can you have a "treatise" without being able to name a specific point, and at that attach ownership of said "Summa" to an edited YT video!? LOL
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 i don't need to explain anything to you, specially if you think this is "the only reasonable conclusion". The gift of knowledge is for the one who seeks it, i don't think you are of that kind. NT Wright! you gotta be kidding.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 if only this video existed you should be thanking me.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Actually, I'd thank you for a coherent specific example of legitimate criticism from this video, because again, we know confidently, you know nothing of NT Wright aside from this video, addressed to audience already "in the know". But because you, a random YT viewer with no familiarity on Wright aside from this edited video, ergo, he must be a "charlatan". Again, what do you specifically cite as your reason for this criticism?
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 the only reasonable conclusion. i'm not arguing against that.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio "Reasonable" and "conclusion" should not be paired by you in this conversation. "Emotional" and "conviction" and "prejudice", now those are suitable partners in your..."Summa".
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 This is a devotional lecture, and i just realized he's pretty much an inerrantist, kind of odd for a catholic. There you have your scholar. "we just need to restrict to the text, we don't need to go beyond the text".
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Well, at one point you stated it wasn't a lecture, that it was a sermon. And now you're calling it a devotional lecture. Now I realize you don't want to be obligated to any real position that requires you to provide an explanation, but sorry, amigo, you'll need to take one position and stay with it. As for just "realizing" he's an inerrantist, do you mean , you just quoted someone on that opinion? Why do YOU say this of Wright? And as for the oddity of a Catholic...(Cont)
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 "at one point you stated it wasn't a lecture, that it was a sermon. And now you're calling it a devotional lecture". OMG, is this all you have?
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Oh, of course, lol. It's "all I have", amigo. Disregard repeated request for singular citation. Disregard to constant correction. Disregard the chain of comments below that question and dissect your inability to actually defend your position apart from the fact that you "think" you're intellectually gifted and that I should simply take your opinion as gospel. I mean...are you mentally ill, or is the language gap that wide? Which begs the question, how can you criticize "codewords"?
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 constant correction??? yeah you wish.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio The beauty of YT. It's all recorded below. :)
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 i don't think it, it's a fact. I am gifted, my IQ is 162 (which could be a lie, but my job and my hobbies kind of support it). Maybe i don't care to discuss with you about arguments that an inerrantist has not given. If he's not willing to discuss the text, if he's going to directly make psychoanalysis of the wizard of oz not caring about history and philology, then there's nothing to discuss.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 if he's going to give me a nice beautiful narrative about his doctrine, then there's nothing to discuss.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 requesting citations is nothing, and i gave it. constant correction?? what correction, that he's an anglican? that's pretty much catholic exotica. My inability to defend my position? my refusal to give you an answer. And haven't you ever heard code word before? i'm sorry i meant buzzword.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 the quotes were his. at 6:23 he virtually shows his inerrantism, well not inerrantism, but his lack of criticism on the integrity of the text, its origin, its possible authorship, it veracity.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio So which is it? Inerrantism or not? And how does not professing here in this video, of a criticism of Scripture's integrity from a historical perspective count as evidence of a lack of integrity? He's an ancient historical scholar. His opinon on Scripture's integrity is well documented. In fact copiously documented in academic publication. But you apparently are so smart, that no examination of a scholar's published work need be reviewed. Have you sold this idea to Universities yet?
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 when i change my words, don't be so confident, you are not making me hestitate, i'm being precise. Aahhh, an argument from authority now.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 ok show me i'm wrong, IS THIS HISTORY, ISN'T HE PREACHING?
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio AGAIN -- if you base your criticism on this video, it is baseless. You are calling a world reninown Biblical scholar without having a working understanding of the scope of his historical spadework. It would be like me criticizing your Spanish on the basis of your English. Is this so hard to grasp?
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@sirdelrio (From Cont.)....And as for the oddity of a Catholic. Well a few things. NT Wright is an Anglican Bishop. Not quite Catholic in perfect theological consideration, but getting there. And if he was perfectly Catholic, which he isn't, his statement "we just need to restrict to the text, we don't need to go beyond the text" would be qualified as evidence of sufficiency to the point being made, not sufficiency in the universal understanding of the Church's deposit of faith.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 "would be qualified as evidence of sufficiency to the point being made" get the fuck outta here. You are the one who cannot follow the content of a speech.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Of course I can. You can't. And if you think you "suddenly realizing" that Wright and inerrantism go hand in hand, I have some icebergs to sell you in Columbia. You Googled away during your time here. You believe Wright to be Catholic as you mentioned? On what basis? And how would you "suddenly realize" inerrantism defined as? And how does someone who cite his opinion as a "Summa" criticize a man as prolific as Wright, without reading a single work? LOL
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 i call them like i see them
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 i will read his works, when his speaches, lectures or sermons promise something. and this one shows nothing. A man telling me the city of oz is real becuase here is the story.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio Always fit your conclusions to your preferred facts. Good job, Einsteino.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 what? isn't that what you're doing with your "only logical conclusion"? is this history? acts grinding? hypothesis and falsification?
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 the more i listen: this is not history, this is rethoric, this is preaching. NOT ONE ARGUMENT. ASSERTIONS. BUZZWORDS. CAN'T YOU SEE IT. OF COURSE YOU CAN'T. YOU'RE SOO THRILLED WITH THIS CRAP.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio "The more I listen". Ah, so you finally admit you didn't fully listen to the speech? And...you do realize this is a speech -- as I already mentioned -- to a crowd of people with a certain working knowledge. This wasn't meant to be a speech to the unintended per se. Again, try cracking open a few books.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 try crack opening.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio "Try crack opening" ? Uhm, lol...seems like you've "opening" some "crack" already. It's not an "opening" roster Im trying to crack, friendo. "Crack open" , "Cracking open" both will due...Friendo. :)
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 now on the english stuff again. so pathetic.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 i do not need to listen to a whole seminar of kent hovind to realize what he has to say. Specially when i'm not a blank canvas on which he's going to insert his church stuff.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 i've learned more in 3 minutes with real scholars, than in these 35 mins full of code words.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio LOL. Of course you have. Lord knows, N.T. Wright is no "real scholar". LOL. And who would these "real scholars" be, that three minutes in their presence leaves one so illuminated?
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 and now you are resorting to ad hominems. and trying to charicaturize me. Being a scholar, at least for me, is not having a PhD, is finding knowledge, not preaching already existing knowledge.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@sirdelrio YOUR ENTIRE CRITICISM OF WRIGHT IS AD HOMINEM. GET REAL.
NilDesperandum777 3 months ago
@NilDesperandum777 my entire criticism? i said he hasn't taught anything, that's not an offense. I said he just asserted stuff, that's not an offense. I said it was a sermon, that's not an offense. I said he is pathetic, there is the ofense. And what would i criticize here?? what has he said??? what argument has he given???
sirdelrio 3 months ago
Is there any reason you only put up a partial link? The full lecture would be greatly appreciated!
DukeDivStudent13 6 months ago