Tom Wright Resurrection

Resurrection DVD £7.50
Based on Tom Wright's award-winning book The Resurrection of the Son of God and constructed around a fascinating interview with him, this DVD explores Tom Wright's critique of a popular theory in modern scholarship concerning the origins of belief in the resurrection of Jesus. Each section is illustrated with dynamic graphics and accompanying visuals.
http://www.stjohns-nottm.ac.uk/show/144

See more from Tom Wright and many other scholars at
St Johns Nottinghams YouTube channel
StJohnsNottingham

Category:

Education

Tags:

• tom
• wright
• resurrection
• jesus
• christianity
• christ
• theology

[gschong]

Wright explains, from a psychological perspective, why subjective experiences (e.g., "renewal", or purposive, mass delusion among all the disciples) could not possibly lead to objective, behavioral, and cognitive changes in Jesus' disciples following His resurrection. All but one of the apostles died horrible deaths for their faith in a resurrected Savior. Apologists like McDowell quip, "would you die for a lie?", but Wright could add, "would you die for a feeling or concocted delusion?"

[lordsong7]

Excellent.

It's great when someone who actually knows what they're talking about confirms the age old basis for belief in Christ.

[MrUrosSrb]

@gschong that was my logic always..man

[johnbraithwaite81]

love it

[Kharisma1980]

@adomjask As Wright argues, Christ means Messiah, and the early Christians didn't use the term Christ without referring in some way to Jesus. I completely agree with you that Christ is not Jesus' last name! :) Certainly Ephesians, Colossians, and Revelation have this amazing sense of Jesus' cosmic role, but even in places like the book of Acts when the author uses kyrios and soter, Roman imperial titles, early followers of the way applied the same terms to Jesus in a cosmic sense. Jesus=Messiah.

[Kharisma1980]

@adomjask When I make a comment like that, I always hope it starts a conversation. Did I misunderstand you? The New Testament does say, "Christ is the firstfruits from among the dead." But making a distinction between Christ and Jesus is not something that Paul would have done, according to Dr. Wright.

[Kharisma1980]

@ebaltrace I'm sorry, I'm still not understanding. I meant my question literally...what is the "problem" you are referring to? Post-modern literary theory (I am speaking of scholars who are not religious) argues that it is quite possible for communities who read a text to perceive meanings that were not "intended" by the original authors. I don't understand why you are connecting the "problem" to inspiration. Is there a definition of inspiration in the Hebrew or Christian testaments?

[ebaltrace]

@Kharisma1980 It's a problem if you believe that the writing of Mark's gospel was inspired by God himself. Surely God should have understood the meaning of the story. If Mark's Gospel is not inspired then there is no problem.

[Kharisma1980]

@ebaltrace I don't think I'm seeing the problem. Can you help me understand it? If the author of Mark believed it was a literal exorcism and didn't catch the political meaning, is that a problem? Perhaps, as you seem to argue, Mark understood the story as a story with a political meaning, in which case it is still logical to believe that Mark's original audience likely understood it the same way. (It seems to me that this discussion revolves around some kind of authorial intention?)

[ebaltrace]

@Kharisma1980 Sounds like you are making an Apologetic argument to cover over a serious problem with Mark's gospel.

[Kharisma1980]

@ebaltrace Again, I'm not sure that's true. After all, if we are able to reconstruct a (very likely) political meaning for the story, it's at least conceivable that the original audience (who were most likely Roman followers of the Way) would have understood the political critique. The problem, in my view, is not that Jesus was understood to literally cast out demons, but rather that Christians forgot the political implications of the stories. Does that make sense? Orality, yes!