Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead? (NT Wright)

[vgblr]

Scietifically dead is dead.I do not think any rise again for anybody whosoever. But how come the most scientific western societies believe such a concept i am still surprised.

[DIBBY40]

To many pagans and gnostic christiansTHIS is the underworld of the dead.

[shieldsff]

thanks- Bishop Wright is truly compelling and informative- I am learning so much from his discussions on the thinking and outlook of the Apostle Paul. This man does a great justice to the literary tradition and scholarship of his fellow Oxford Christian thinker C.S. LEWIS

[HolyMisfit]

Boggles my mind why he's a Catholic... smh

[TheNgj1983]

@HolyMisfit N.T. Wright is not Catholic.

[HolyMisfit]

@TheNgj1983 The Church of England is part of the Catholic Church

[goremau]

@HolyMisfit No it's not part of the Catholic Church at all. Separate and distinct. Check out the 39 Articles say about the authority of the Pope. A very strong repudiation of what is necessary to seen as Catholic by the Roman Catholic church. Anglicans understand their church to be part of the wider universal church of Christ. Small 'c' 'catholic' as opposed to a denomination of the Roman Catholic church. So no CofE is a protestant church. The Bible is it's source of faith not just tradition.

[HolyMisfit]

@goremau I actually read the In depth history of the CoE. I was mistaken. Can't go by looks I suppose lol The Papacy seems Christian but it's really Pagan. The CoE looks Catholic but it's reformed.

[goremau]

@HolyMisfit No probs. NT Wright resigned as Bishop of Durham in 2010 as well. One thing to remember though too is there is a movement within Anglicanism (Anglo-Catholic) that has an affinity to a Catholic 'christian' spirituality...leading some bishops and priest/ministers to actually become Roman Catholic too. Sadly. This is a great video though.

[NilDesperandum777]

@goremau Perhaps you should delve further into what constitutes The Holy Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic communion. There will be nothing sad when The Church is entirely and perfectly unified into one communion. Dialogue,underway between various communions including Greek Orthodox, Anglican,etc. for some time...There have been obstacles in the Roman Catholic Church to be sure, but please, be mindful of Christ's admonition, that the gates of Hades wouldnt prevail...Peace.

[NilDesperandum777]

@goremau "Apostolic authority was a shared reality between Peter and Paul. Supremacy of Peter is very much a more recent reading of Jesus." So when the other patriarchs acknowledge "Primus Inter Pares" that's just another revisionist interpretation? I don't see anything sad about the Church coming back into it's intended construct at all. That's Christ's hope (John 17:21) and it should be every Christian's however pie in the sky it may seem.

[goremau]

@NilDesperandum777 The univeral catholic church of Christ is something that contains the Roam Catholic church. The Roman Catholic church is NOT to be defined as this. I see no value in returning to the Roman Catholic fold if we are already part of Christ's church by believing in him.

Roman Catholicism is an expression of Christianity not it's sole authority. God in Christ is. And all church tradition need to submit to Him. As the only source of that authority.

[NilDesperandum777]

@goremau So this is just your personal opinion, correct? I've noticed you didn't bother to answer this question posed to you from below: "So when the other patriarchs acknowledge "Primus Inter Pares" that's just another revisionist interpretation?" And to say, "universal catholic church of Christ" is redundant. You do know that Catholic means "universal" don't you? And as for saying that the Roman Catholic communion isn't in the fold, that's incorrect. Do you know what "primus inter pares" is?

[NilDesperandum777]

@goremau I'm not certain why you would feel to attribute correction to the Catholic Church with respect to it's center (Christ). The Church points to Itself in Christ's authority. To disregard why Rome is important, is to disregard why Peter is important, and why Paul equally holds importance. The first Bishop of Rome was Peter, that Peter once Cephas was first among equals in so many respects only ever holds importance in his relationship to Christ. To imply Rome is incidental is delusional.

[NilDesperandum777]

@goremau Not at all. One doesn't have to advance a particular dogma in order to correct the inaccuracies of another. And in plain fact, it's what I've done thus far. You're entirely free to believe as you wish, but stating error however well-meaning, remains error. There's a reason "primus inter pares" is a contentious issue. I invite you to study why it is an issue at all. Roman Catholicism is more than a few contentious propositions. But you're under no obligation to parse them.

[NilDesperandum777]

@goremau You may reject anything you like, as some intellectually do while remaining in the Church. The truth of the importance of "primus inter pares" (Thanks for taking the time to look it up.) is in it's willing participants. If the Orthodox Church regard it's conceptual ligature then surely attempting to continually change the question as though any of those communions place Christ behind them is to attempt a slight of hand. (Cont)

[NilDesperandum777]

@goremau (From Cont.) The Roman Catholic Church regards -- obviously -- as it's first and foremost authority to that point in which Christ is identified as it's head. I'll quote CCC entry one after the other should you require it. The issue is the Roman Catholic interpretation of it's authority under Christ that remains the center of the debate concerning a repair of schism. Russian, Greek, etc...have all voiced as much. Separately are those discussions with the Anglican, Lutheran, etc...

[NilDesperandum777]

@goremau That's well and fine, but like you're ignorance around "primus inter pares" as a concept and as a point of past and likely future consensus, I'm not A) Preaching Roman Catholicism to anyone, let alone you. B) Implying, hinting or plainly stating a wish to convert you. Conversion is God's exclusive purview, not a believer's. So whatever conversation you think you're having, or wish you weren't having has nothing to do with my comments directed toward you in sum, to this point.

[TheFunkyTheist]

@HolyMisfit He's not. He's an Anglican.

[HolyMisfit]

@TheFunkyTheist read the comments below lol

[TheFunkyTheist]

@HolyMisfit Ah I see now. I was too quick to respond to you LOL.

[ydomanoaccount5je]

This has converted me to Christianity. Thank you rfvidz for this "vid".

[rfvidz]

@ydomanoaccount5je Praise God!

[ydomanoaccount5je]

@NadiyaAngel9 A blinded christian.

[dbzgtcrazy]

@ydomanoaccount5je Praise God! Welcome to the family and kingdom of God. Message me with any questions you have, and I will be pleased to at least try and answer your questions, although I certainly don't know everything and we may not be associated with the exact same Christian theological or denominational traditions. Anyway, feel free to contact me!

[Andy2542]

@ydomanoaccount5je

Praise the Lord Jesus Christ! A wonderful feeling on my behalf brother.

[wordwarrior007]

but I am grateful that the sovereign God has led you to discover these truths through the labor of academia. I hope and pray that you will be filled with the Holy Spirit of Christ and immersed in His name for the remission of sins so that you are guaranteed your spot in His coming Kingdom. I should really like to see you there in the life after life after death! THANK YOU!!!!!!!!

[jeffsmountainauto]

@wordwarrior007 Um... What makes you think that Dr. Wright is not filled with the Holy Spirit now? And who made you the judge of who is and who is not? Just curious... Have you ever read anything Dr. Wright has written? He clearly believes that Jesus was the Son of God who died for the remission of sins.

[vladdy3]

@wordwarrior007 I'm with the last guy, I'm not to sure what you're trying to say. Of course it's the Spirit that reveals truth to us, through the Word, but just because Dr. Wright studied it doesn't mean he is void of the witness of the Spirit. To believe that he isn't a Christian without judging the fruit of his life rightly is quite a prideful claim, as you implicitly claim a knowledge that only God has. Wright isn't right in all of his doctrine, but definitely seems like a Christian

[wordwarrior007]

Amen, Dr. Right. Excellent lecture! Your years of research have shown you the truth taught to me by the Spirit of God when the Holy Spirit entered my being at my new birth, just as is the case with all truly biblical Christians. Just think that you could have skipped years of studying,

[JasperDale]

thank you so much for sharing this video. i have wanted to hear n.t. wright discuss in detail this subject.

[agnostaxian]

thanx for uploading