Tom Wright - The Historical Jesus

[fiercey]

I heard of people saying NT Wright talks about "god" with lower case G and I think he does so here 3:36 That is a little scary doesn't it. Remember this man was a 5 pt calvinist in college. Has he strayed far from true CHristianity or is he a man who has a great, God-given vision that is illuminating to christians. You must ask, as he says you must learn the history of the thing before you can properly analyze it, what is Wrights history? :) Also... ask: Is this teaching illuminating?

[kinyptor1]

@fiercey If you actually care to learn something for yourself rather than taking what you have "heard" as truth you can open "New Testament and the People of God" written by N.T. Wright. On preface page xiv he explains exhaustively why in the writing of this book he chooses to not capitalize the word "god." However, you could continue to post ridiculous things on youtube which you personally know nothing about in an attempted to undermine the worlds leading biblical scholar.

[newgeorge]

radical conservative liberal charismatic. thats him in a nutshell!

[Wintblash]

google Doe's Account.

[ebaltrace]

At a Bible Study, I could see down a hallway. As a car rode by it would block the sun and the shadow would move across the wall of the hallway. The woman sitting next to me jumped up and screamed, I just saw an Angel in the hallwayAnother woman jumped up I saw it also

They were all convinced that an Angel had visited our Bible Study.

Sunday it was official An Angel has visited our Bible Study.

A Christian Miracle; Some wishful thinking, religious fervor, delusion.

Ebal

[chukmaty]

Sure, there is definitely overreaction to things like that, that is life. It is equally as crazy to completely blow off some of the chances I have seen peoples lives after they accept Christ. I try not to overreact or discount things either way.

As someone who backslid back into Christianity from existentialism, I can say the same thing bugged me, and still irritates me. I do not like emotionalism, but some things cannot be ignored when they occur over and over again.

[Johna888]

I'd like to see the rest of it. Could you post it if you have it?

[ebaltrace]

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them

This mountain doesn't exist. How can we discover the Historical Jesus when the story of his life includes fables.

Ebal The Atheist

[NilDesperandum777]

@ebal, Allegory,metaphor...common story telling devices Christ Himself employed. Evidence for the historical Jesus isnt in dispute so much as His claims by various particular groups.

[ebaltrace]

Christians like to say that the Jesus story is historical. But it's not. Untrue metaphoric stories are not history. Where does truth begin and metaphor end? Is the resurrection story a metaphor for Jesus living on through his teaching?

Ebal the Atheist

[NilDesperandum777]

@Ebal, It's actually very easy to distinguish, what's metaphor, what's allegory and what's akin to 1st century journalism. The history of Jesus is accurate, verifiable through evidence and backed by 2000 years of traceable maintained Church testimony. The Resurrection is literal in every sense. It's record is literal, it's understanding is literal and it's maintenance in Church history is literal.

[ebaltrace]

Or so you assert! The gospels are anonymous writings, which are "Hearsay", written in a language foreign to the Jewish people, and published in foreign countries, at least 40 years after the events they supposedly portray. Ebal the Atheist

[NilDesperandum777]

@Ebal, I'm not the one asserting. The Chester Beatty Library in Dublin has a manuscript that is dated no later than 35 AD which outlines creeds, Christians have used for 2000 years written in Greek, the lingua franca of the day. Greek and Latin wouldnt have been foreign at all. The date of the manuscript is one of several examples that predate a period of 40 years after the Resurrection, but still, the oral tradition was recorded within a generation on top of the evidence at hand.

[ebaltrace]

Do you have a link for this manuscript?

Send me a PM if it won't load into a comment.

Ebal the Atheist

[chukmaty]

That asserts that a spiritual being cannot take a divine being to and fro by non natural means. The Bible asserts supernatural events which must be taken by faith, such as the parting of the Red Sea which have no rational explanation. This however does not keep us from understanding the people involved in historical terms. We look at history to find that a Jewish culture that anticipated a messiah responded in a specific way to a person who claimed to be God and claimed to do miracles.

[chukmaty]

We look comparatively at other purported messianic figures who also sought to fulfill prophecies and how the people responded to them. We can see that Christ is a unique figure amongst the many messianic burnouts. Even though he was killed, we can see that a vast network of Christ followers popped up from apostles who were there at his death and then while in hiding three days later were confronted by a risen Christ. We can see in Acts and in other records how they took this faith unto death.

[ebaltrace]

@chukmaty What proof do you have that Jesus rose from the dead?

Ebal the Atheist

[chukmaty]

Never claimed to have proof, I claimed that the evidence for this happening i strongly suggested by the individuals comparative reaction to his death and claimed resurrection compared to other messianic figures in a time of intense messianic expectation in the context of an extensive prophetic body of work which was heavily scrutinized at the time.

[chukmaty]

We have to look at the universe and ask which possible origin of the universe is rational. That it has existed in time eternally or that time, other physical laws, matter, and the energy to push it outwards all came to be with no prime mover? That would be a miracle in an of itself.

The idea that a divine being not constrained by what we know as the laws of physics existed to be the prime mover and who can be known in a relationship through special revelation to man is not preposterous.

[chukmaty]

So, a God who can speak the universe into existence then engaging in activities which can only described as miraculous is not unbelievable given that it is surrounded by historical documentation and preceded by a prophetic tradition in Judaism.

I am more ready to believe in a spiritual being taking Christ to a mountaintop than I would be likely believe the universe and the physical laws within it came from absolute nothing or exist on their own behalf.

[ebaltrace]

@chukmaty The earth is real. That mountain doesn't exist anyplace on the earth. It's not historical.

You know it....

Ebal the Atheist

[chukmaty]

I think you rather miss the point of the verse, if a being can take someone anywhere, he can certainly give him flashes of every major kingdom of the earth. The event is seen as miraculous, not as mundane. An ordinary person could not do what Satan supposedly did and no one has claimed as much.

[ebaltrace]

@chukmaty Your depending on the Supernatural. There is no competent evidence for any supernatural event.

Ebal the Atheist

[chukmaty]

The universe not being self expressive is probably the greatest evidence for there being a super natural. The mundane natural world does not have within it an explanation for its own existence. Also, nearly endless human records throughout every culture of their being supernatural events, which cannot be replicated like a natural event, qualifies as evidence.

The evidence may not persuade everyone, including you, but it is incorrect to say that there is no evidence when there is a lot.

[ebaltrace]

@chukmaty Have you ever witnessed a supernatural event? Do you know of any supernatural event that has been documented by a competent authority?

The Supernatural is only found in fables, fairy tales, scary movies, and the Bible.

Ebal the Atheist

[chukmaty]

Depends, maybe... but the thing is, no authority could "observe" such an event like a scientist would need it to be observed because it would not be replicable or recordable in a way that would satisfy the scientific method. The reason for this is painfully simple, science is built on the observation of natural events and organizes these events based on observed scientific laws. Something like an answer to prayer, or atonement for sin, and feeling lead by the spirit are all unobservable.

[ebaltrace]

@chukmaty Can you name one thing that Jesus has done, that we can all see, that has made life better for mankind?

I can't think of anything. Can you?

But the Messianic Prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures were prophecies of things we would be able to see. But Jesus did not fulfill a single one.

Ebal the Atheist

[chukmaty]

I completely disagree with that statement. Christ fulfilled many prophecies, including the manner of his death. If you cannot believe in his birth to a virgin or his resurrection from death and ascension into heaven; at the very least you can believe he died on a tree of shame without a bone being broken. People did claim to see these things, and died for that belief rather than deny it and pay homage to the Emperor of Rome and the Roman gods. They document this in the gospels and Acts.

[ebaltrace]

@chukmaty Nothing that we can verify.

Ebal the Atheist

[chukmaty]

While this is not the proof you want, after all we cannot go back in time and see it for ourselves, It is certainly a claim made by not just one person or group. But by documents written by individuals who were there first hand and whose words were accepted by thousands living in the same vicinity at that time. These people when interacting with the Roman Civilization are recorded in multiple secular historical records. The riot of Christus, Josephus, and later with Pliny the Younger.

[ebaltrace]

@chukmaty You have a vivid imagination.

Ebal te Atheist

[chukmaty]

Hey, may the all powerful nothingness bless you, as it obviously made everything.

[ebaltrace]

@chukmaty That's an interesting comment. If God made everything and everyone, then he made the Homosexuals also. So why does God want to kill the Homosexuals if he made them? Do you see a dissonance here?

Ebal the Atheist

[chukmaty]

One, I do not think he wants to kill homosexuals anymore than he wants to kill fornicators, adulterers, and pornography addicts.

Two, yes God allows human being to be born who are born in automatic inclinations that do not conform to his commands... actually every heterosexual man is born with such ingrained inclinations hat are equally as offensive to God's law as homosexuality. Why this is can be a more difficult thing for me to understand, I would chalk it up to the fall, just me.

[ElProximo]

I don't see a dissonance if and when we presume a Judeo-Christian God (or really most other versions).

People can degenerate, err and make bad choices.

We don't suppose God made alcoholics.

I LOVED smoking and knew it was for me at age 14 and continue going for them,

but,

I don't suppose 'God made me a smoker' and show that by explaining how badly I want a smoke and it suits me now and always has.

Do you see it?

[ebaltrace]

@ElProximo You know the Scriptures. God says to put Homosexuals to death even though God made Homosexuals. God never mentions smokers. Smoking and Alcoholism are life style choices just as one chooses to murder and steal. But Homosexuality is not a choice. They're wired in their brains as Homosexuals. No one with a Heterosexual brain would choose to be a Homosexual and incur the wrath of society, especially the theists.

Ebal the Atheist

[ElProximo]

ebal,

Israelites received a long list of club rules. Some actions would result in a death penalty for the tribe member by other tribe members.

Having homosexual urges was NOT one of them but if a Jew man had sex with another Jew then that was one of them.

Otherwise you are just 'announcing' that homosexuality is not a choice.

Amazing.

You are forced to do it?

Society now spits on smokers and bans me from doing it,

I am physically ill if I don't,

yet,

I still don't claim 'I was 'born this way'

[ebaltrace]

@ElProximo The real choice is to believe a lie or live free.

Ebal the Atheist

[ElProximo]

I strongly agree,

although, in a godless universe I can't see how that matters to you?

[ebaltrace]

@ElProximo It matters to me because churches don't pay taxes so I have to pay more to make up what they don't pay.

Theists suppress science, like stem cell research which offers tremendous posibilities to cure degenerative disease.

Ebal the Atheist

[ElProximo]

Not this Church tax stupidity again.... .. Look. Stop. I am going to explain this for the 1,000th time to someone on the internet: EVERY PERSON IN OUR CHURCH PAYS TAXES. SAME AS YOU OR ANYONE ELSE. Lots of our money! THEN we take our 'Net' cash. OUR remaining money and we put our OWN MONEY into our OWN club. and, We ALSO pay taxes on whatever we buy the SAME as you, and, If we hire anyone - they PAY TAXES ON THAT. So you do not get to 'RE-TAX' a Church you dingbat. D'UH!

[ebaltrace]

@ElProximo Does your church pay property taxes? Does your church pay sales taxes on items the church buys? Do you deduct the money that you donate to your church on your income tax form?

Ebal the Atheist

[ElProximo]

We are the same as ANY OTHER NONPROFIT ORGANISATION. We DO pay sales tax on the SAME items, and, Check with your accountant on deductions, however, SAME APPLIES TO ALL DONATIONS TO ALL NONPROFIT ORGS! Why? Because WE ALREADY WERE TAXED. Dummy... you CANNOT tax people TWICE. Do you comprehend that ALL the money in my Church is 'our money'. So bad questions. Once again - we ALL pay taxes, and, btw... we give stuff to the community from OUR money. In case you were worried.

[atheistrthebest]

Even if homosexuality was hardwired into our brains (which is still disputed) then is still doesnt mean they need to practice homosexuality. And please stop trolling, please let other people believe in other things!

[toulton91]

@atheistrthebest

"doesn't mean they need to practice homosexuality..." Ha! You're funny! If you're so awesome at overriding what is a physical part of your brain function, why don't you just ignore the urge to breathe and put your words into action.

[bayreuth79]

@toulton91 You are making a logical mistake called the naturalistic fallacy. If your argument were correct, which it isn't, it would legitimize innumerable moral evils. A paedophile might argue that his sexual inclinations are hardwired into his brain and therefore his inclinations aren't reprehensible; but would you really want to argue that?? The question is not: are homosexual ppl hardwired for same sex attraction? but is homosexual behaviour moral, i.e., is it conducive to the good?

[toulton91]

@bayreuth79 Firstly, it doesn't legitimise anything - the law is decided by "the people" based on what they believe is acceptable in society. If the majority believed it was ok to steal eachothers cars, then it wouldn't be illegal, because we all agreed that it is socially acceptable. Secondly, the fact that you compare homosexuality to paedophillia frankly disgusts me.

[bayreuth79]

@toulton91 So by your "democratic" logic there would be nothing wrong with making homosexuality illegal if that happened to coincide with the majority? I wasn't saying that homosexuality and paedophilia are moral equivalents: of course not! I was say that just because we might be hardwired for certain kinds of behaviour that doesn't make it morally acceptable.

[toulton91]

@bayreuth79 I think you'll find that that being homosexual was illegal in the not so distant past... And I agree - you might be a clinical psychopath, but its not morally acceptable to kill people. We don't like psychopaths because they kill people, like you and me! However, a homosexual relationship poses absolutely zero risk to your safety and affects YOUR life in no way at all - it involves the two people and no one else, so whats your issue?!

[toulton91]

@bayreuth79 I absolutely certain that the structure of the brain and the various neural connections are responsible for the feelings a pedophile. But, as in my first point, it is only because the majority of human beings aren't pedophiles that we deem it to be morally wrong and disgusting - mainly because of the enormous psychological and physical damage it causes abused children! How many homosexuals have sexually abused you to make you hate them so much?!

[bayreuth79]

@toulton91 The only reason why pedophilia is wrong is because the majority happen to think that it is? Suppose the majority decided that pedophilia was 'ok'? By your logic, if this happened pedophiles would be able to have intercourse with children and it would be morally neutral!!?? I think there has to be something seriously faulty with your ethical thinking. Besides, if you are correct, there was nothing wrong with gasing the Jews because it was legal under Nazi rule. Come on!!

[toulton91]

@bayreuth79 Again, we don't like pedophiles BECAUSE they abuse children - they are causing harm to defenceless and innocent humans, which we are 'hardwired' to dislike. If we weren't 'wired' this way, we wouldn't mind it! Of course, as modern human beings, know that it's wrong to persecute people for being jewish, but under Nazi rule, the people of Germany really did believe it was morally sound otherwise it wouldn't have happened!

[toulton91]

@bayreuth79 I also find it interesting that you think that it is immoral to persecute Jews (which is a religious CHOICE, all racial elements aside) but its ok to persecute homosexuals who have no choice whatsoever in the matter

[bayreuth79]

@toulton91 You would put those who are against homosexuality on a par with racists? Oh come on! I make an absolute distinction between a person and his/or her acts. I might think that homosexuality activity is morally wrong but this does not mean that I would try to prevent anyone from engaging in such activity. For me the issue of homosexual activity is on a par with any sexual activity before marriage. I think that homosexual acts are no worse than heterosexual acts outside marriage.

[toulton91]

@bayreuth79 If that's the case, then why bother arguing against me? If you really didn't want to prevent homosexual acts, you would keep all your thoughts and feelings to yourself. Plus, I would argue that you only believe these things because your religion has told you to think these things. At least I have come to my own conclusions without any kind bias.

[bayreuth79]

@toulton91 I have answered your first question. By "preventing" I meant legally or forcibly preventing. I am not in favour of this, of course; but I am in favour of persuading people to accept my own views. You are doing exactly the same thing I am in this respect: making your case, trying to persuade. - Let us suppose u are right that I reject homosexuality because of religion. So what? Its the arguments that matter. I could retort: you only think its right because you want to have sex with men

[toulton91]

@bayreuth79 I agree on persuasion - I may try and persuade you to give up religion because I think it would make you a more tolerant and free thinking person, but only because you can choose your religion. This is ultimately what I'm trying to say. Homosexuals can't choose to be gay or straight no more than a black person can choose to be black or White so don't try and make them change.

[ShadeToSun]

@toulton91 Micheal Jackson would tend to disprove your argument.

[bayreuth79]

@toulton91 Ok, I have to go, but I want to say one final thing. I am open to persuasion about homosexuality. If I think an argument is cogent, I accept it. I am open to the possibility that homosexual acts might be morally acceptable; but as things are I do not accept this. However, I understand to some extent where ppl such as yourself are coming from and I realize its a complex issue. Maybe I will change my mind. Regards.

[toulton91]

@bayreuth79 The fact that I'm not gay and I'm sure you are not says a lot about this argument! Nice speaking with you. Regards

[bayreuth79]

@toulton91 You are asking the question: if homosexual acts do no harm (either with respect to those engaged in such acts or with respect to anyone else) then why should moralists such as me dare to say it is wrong? There are world renowned thinkers who regard homosexuality as a potential danger. Professor Roger Scruton- Oxford philosophers- makes this argument. l

[toulton91]

@bayreuth79 If you have the time, could you give me a some more info on where I can find out more about this - I'd be very interested. Thanks

[toulton91]

@bayreuth79 Finally, do you really believe that, with all the prejudiced and abusive people like you around, anyone would deliberately choose to be gay?!

[bayreuth79]

@toulton91 Huh? Am I abusive if I disagree with you?? I realize that homosexual activists don't like debate- that is why they coined the phrase homophobic, to shut down debate by branding your interlocutor irrational- but this is ridiculous! If we are no longer allowed to disagree then there is something seriously wrong.

[toulton91]

@bayreuth79 You're not just 'disagreeing' though. You're in favour of repressing particular people for something they have no control over - you're like a racists best friend! I live by my own morals, one of which is, if you're doing me no harm I have no problem with you. Just as you want gay activists to be quiet, they want you to be quiet - it's not like they're trying to convert you or anything!!!

[bayreuth79]

@toulton91 Hmmm. So there is nothing intrinsically wrong with murdering Jews or raping children: we are merely "hardwired" to dislike these things? I find this kind of reductive relativism wholly unpersuasive. As far as I can see, murdering Jews and raping children is always and everywhere wrong irrespective of the positive law or supposed "hardwiring".- I find it interesting that you seem to regard my views as morally reprehensible. You seem to think that my views are wrong- absolutely?!

[toulton91]

@bayreuth79 Well tell me how you could possibly know that murder and rape are wrong, if you have no concept of what they are?! The only reason we are disgusted by these things is because a number of neural pathways in the brain have developed to tell us that "this is wrong"

[bayreuth79]

@toulton91 If we are talking about how we can "know" certain things: I could ask you how you "know" that the only reason why we are disgusted by rape and murder is because of "hardwiring"? Where is your scientific evidence? I know innumerable neurologists and psychologists who would profoundly disagree with your reductive thinking. The reason why rape and murder are wrong is because both involve a violation of that persons rights as a person. These rights pertain always and everywhere.

[toulton91]

@bayreuth79 "Human rights" are just that - rights created by humans for human, I.e. Without humans, there would be no human rights. Rights are created by us to promote equality and peace.

[bayreuth79]

@toulton91 One more point: I am not "repressing" anyone. I might disagree with you about the moral status of homosexual acts but you are perfectly free to engage in such acts. I am not forcibly preventing you- neither am I in favour of making homosexual acts illegal. I think that this is similar to the issue of sex before marriage. Likewise: I am not in favour of legal sanctions against it. It is a moral question, but not a legal one.

[toulton91]

@bayreuth79 It is the moral side of it I take issue with - I believe morals should come about through personal experience, not from a religious leader telling you what to think I.e I believe murder is wrong not necessarily because I have been told so but because I don't want to be murdered.

[chukmaty]

The gospels also can qualify as historical authorities.

[ebaltrace]

@chukmaty John 14:12 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.

Can you turn water to wine, walk on water, or raise the dead?

Of course you can't ...but Jesus said you could. It's nonsense. How can this silly claim be considered historical?

Ebal the Atheist

[chukmaty]

I think a reading of Paul shows a dispensational shift that is rather clear between the NT church and the prophesied Kingdom of Christ. Christ was not talking to me, he was talking to his direct audience, me a gentile, had the gospel extended to me in the epistles of Paul. A reading of acts shows the apostles that witnessed this speech did do as Christ did by his power, spoke in tongues, healed, etc. Paul had to live with illness, imprisonment, and suffering.

[chukmaty]

Then there is personal anecdotal evidence, this cannot be replicated in a laboratory, but the person experiencing it cannot ignore it. That is why Christians giving their testimony is so important to the Christian faith, because a spiritual event is a personal one, individuals have to talk about it.

[chukmaty]

I think you are operating under the false assumption that all things can be scientifically quantified. The beginning of the universe cannot, perhaps matter can be, but what we call scientific laws can't. Science cannot, by definition, explain the replicable behavior which, when observed in the laboratory or in the field, we define as scientific law. We can only explain what happens, not ultimately why, via the scientific method. We just reduce our understanding to smaller "whats."

[bearnurse1]

Tom Wright is or was the Bishop of Durham, England. in the Church of England

[cbcurtis85]

Wright gives a good summary of why studying the historicity of Jesus is important to people of faith.

[pemicx]

hey, I learned nothing about the historical Jesus - except that it's important to this guy's faith.

[nathybathy]

this is just a short part of his complete talk which was part of a series of talks. Sorry, couldn't post whole talk! I have dvd's if you want to hear more!

[danydidaskos]

I really intersted in it

can I give you my mail?

thanks

Daniel

[dogloverdan09]

that cannot be a wright