Who was Jesus - N.T. Wright
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- Tom Wright is one of today's top New Testament scholars. Born in 1948, he studied for the ministry at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, and was ordained as Junior Research Fellow and Junior Chaplain at Merton College, Oxford.
From 1978 to 1981 he was Fellow and Chaplain at Downing College, Cambridge, and then moved to Montreal as Assistant Professor of New Testament Studies at McGill University. He returned in 1986 to Oxford as University Lecturer in New Testament, and Fellow and Chaplain of Worcester College, Oxford. He became Dean of Lichfield in 1994, and Canon Theologian of Westminster Abbey in 2000.
Tom has written over thirty books, both at the scholarly level and for a popular audience. A good friend of Regent Professor Emeritus Gordon Fee, he has been a past teacher at the College.
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.82[1/2] แก๊ง 3 สาวเพื่อนซี้บุก CAMPปลิ้นครั้งนี้ห้ามเสียอาการ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_6WUjXHe1TM/mqdefault.jpg)
Somebody is definitely delusional, but it is not those who believe in Jesus Christ. The Hebrew Scripture predicted exactly what Jesus was and did. It was not the Romans, but the Jews who became the first Christians. How do you explain the conversion of Paul? All of miracles, including His resurrection proved that Jesus was divine. Harden not your heart, be open to the Holy Spirit, begin by accepting that whatever you believe, you may be wrong and take it from there. Where you will spend eternity depends on it!
it's good to know there are rational people out there who actually READ the Scriptures and don't believe the propaganda of the "atheist few".
I agree with all of it except the last bit. We will be judged on how much we have loved. Or failed to love.
There will be plenty of non Christians in front of Christians according to this.
CHRIS OCONNOR we will be judged according to whether or not we have saving faith in Christ
Who was jesus (PBUH) a very wise and humble man respect from a Muslim
NT wright is fantastic.
I left the path to ordination as a young man precisely because I was being told the false things about Jesus that Bishop Wright denounces.
I went through the same sort of theological schooling as Tom Wright. The Dead Sea Scrolls had just been translated and commented-upon by Geza Vermes; whilst studies in Schweitzer, and many subsequent Christological scholars (Fredriksen, Spong, Bauckham, Ehrman, Kasemann, Moltmann, etc) had led to me becoming 'stuck' on the human being, Jesus of Nazareth a young Jewish teacher of 'apocalyptic'; unable to leap the 'Christological Chasm' to the Christ of faith. Sure, I was aware of Anselm's famous quotation: "I believe, in order that I might understand", but it took Richard Bauckham ('Jesus and the Eyewitnesses') and the wonderful Richard Rohr ('The Universal Christ') to enable me to leap that Christological Chasm. We are 'moderns'. Our sense of the scale of our Cosmos is simply inconceivably vast. So, of course 'simple faith' (ie simplistic faith!) is of little use to us. We want our faith to be 'reasonable'. "The Word became flesh: not flesh became the Word!" Wow! What a statement for those who would see the Bible as 'The Word of God'!
The historical Jesus and the Jesus we give allegiance to/believe in is one and the same.
Amen for N T wright
@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.
@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?
@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
@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.
@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.
@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 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?
@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
@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 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?
@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 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?
@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.
@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".
@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 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 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?
@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".
Headache-inducing delivery, portentous opinions, questions without answers, and conveying no understanding of Jesus as a figure at all. Evidently Wright is a good chap, but this lecture is very poor indeed. Thirty minutes telling us how hard it is to know Jesus but how important it is to know Jesus. And if we take the Gospels as, well, gospel, as Wright insistently demands, over and over, we should only do so if we establish their historical authority. This lecture says nothing about the history.
Jesus was Jewish. He would not have appreciated the way his teachings have been transformed. He would not have appreciated that the world still exists and that we are still waiting for the kingdom of God. And above all he would not have appreciated N T Wright.
@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.
@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 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.
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.
My scholarship is based on and focused in the message of the Gospels as a sociolinguistic key to the Jesus movement of the first century.
I appreciate NT Wright's focus on the Gospels.
Just one question...does N.T.Wright believe that Jesus is God?
Does he ever breathe?
Its a miracle.
Great first video son. I know thier will be more videos. Love you dad
It's not who he is it's who he's not.
Meaning to say:
The Father is not the Son the Son is not the Father the Father, is not the Holy Spirit.
If Jesus is God he killed himself.
If Jesus is God then he impregnated his own mother.
They God and Jesus are one in purpose not in physical form or substance.
To mean further!
1. Luke 6:46
"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?
2. John 17:5
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
3. Jesus earned godhood
"Jesus became a God and reached His great state of understanding through consistent effort and continuous obedience to all the Gospel truths and universal laws." The Gospel Through the Ages; Deseret Book Co. 1945, p.51
He will become our spritual Father by Faith through the Word as God became Our Father by the Words of Creation. Romans 4:17
And; “Let us make man in our image,...." wIll be fulfilled.
@NilDesperandum777 if you arrive to sunday school in your historical study, that's pathetic.
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!
@NilDesperandum777 this is not a lecture about history, is a lecture about the sociology of the wizard of oz.
@sirdelrio YOUR ENTIRE CRITICISM OF WRIGHT IS AD HOMINEM. GET REAL.
Wright never quite gets around to saying what Jesus was trying to *achieve* in his ministry.
HE established his Kingdom.,that's what Wright teaches that Jesus did.
The question I always ask, is Jesus God?
What Gospel did Jesus preached? The true gospel talks about the Kingdom of God.
Luke 4:43 "I must preach the Kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose."
Matt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom (NOT the Bible; NOT Jesus; NOT his Resurrection nor the Cross) will be proclaimed throughout the world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."
Luke 9:2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God,...
Luke 16:16 Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached,
There's ONLY one true Gospel...that is the Kingdom of God.
All churches in the world have preached the wrong Gospel...
Amen, neteslg. It's ALL about GOVERNMENT (a Kingdom).
The Father (Yahweh) and the Son (Yahshua) are KINGS, and will be for All Eternity.
I believe that Yahshua called His disciples (students) to be kings and priests in the Kingdom - a Very High Honor reserved for the "elect" (which the Father chose from the "beginning" through His Supreme Will.
All others - the vast majority of mankind - will be subjects in the Kingdom (Eden restored) for all eternity. That's the promise of John 3:16 - NOT to perish, but to have the Gift of ETERNAL LIFE.
The evidence is overwhelming historically. From Jewish and Roman political figures, the historical and cultural figures and practices of different groups, the geographical locations and names, details about Jerusalem and the Temple which were destroyed in AD 70, after which it was given a different name and the fulfilment of Jewish Messianic prophecies provide a strong evidence for faith.
@sirdelrio Always fit your conclusions to your preferred facts. Good job, Einsteino.
Brilliant.
Seems he is always, brilliant.
Can this please be fixed? at minute 29 the sermon gets cut off!
Yes right at the crucial part. How frustrating.
Yes, please fix this.
@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.
The Gospel of Mark and the Congressional Medal of Honor
Many believe that Mark was written around 60 A.D., also the believe that the other gospels were written later is based on the modern atheist outlook. ….. +john logan
That has been the conventional wisdom, especially among atheists and Muslims. who have a vested interest in pushing the dates of the autographs as far away from 30 CE as possible, However, on-going scholarship suggests that the Christian doctrine reflected in Acts 10: 34 = 43 was more or less solidified within the first year to 18 months after the cross and that the oral tradition reflected in Mark, most of which is attributed to Peter, was likewise more or less codified by 37. It is my contention that Mark was assembled by Cornelius after the 3 day debriefing with Peter in Acts 10, which occurred in 40 AD, from Peter’s testimony, from elements of routine Roman military bureaucratic surveillance files and from the Roman testimony which begins in Mark 14 and is reflected in the general content of the Gospel of Peter, which is testimony Cornelius provided Peter during their debriefing regarding the eyewitness testimony of the Romans about the actual moment of resurrection (this is not an endorsement of the Gospel of Peter, per se, but on the probable source of the material in the gospel, which Mark makes clear could not have been Peter after his denial of Jesus).
Furthermore, it is likely that Mark was available to Luke by the time Paul was imprisoned by Felix in Caesarea in 59, which is when Luke was able to interview various participants in both Luke and Acts, including Mary, mother of Jesus and Cornelius, who was right there in town, It is clear to me that Acts 13, on, was being prepared as an amicus brief for the defense of Paul and that Greek was composed for Theophilus represented the Equestrian class, to whom he was to be delivered in Rome and that much of it was written in real time as events occurred (especially the sea voyage), which means that much of Acts was in writing by 66, at which time the project became moot with the execution of Paul. Sura Maryam 19: 1 - 33 confirms Luke;s version of the nativity, which Sura 74:30 reveals is the meaning of the Qur’an (Mohammad never understood that his mission was to lead Arabs to Jesus or, as likely, he understood but preferred to exploit his revelations for personal profit and prestige).. In any event, the final versions of Luke and Acts may have been composed later in the century, but the essential research (in addition to the basic narrative arc of Mark) for the project had been completed by 66.
Mark is called “Mark” (and not Cornelius) for a number of reasons, the most important being that it was in the best interests of the Romans to keep their involvement in the Christian movement clandestine, at the very least. Given the Caesar worship movement sweeping the empire at the time, endorsing a Jewish insurrectionist as the Son of God promised a literal cross of their own for high treason, the only crime a Roman could be crucified for. Richard Bauchman’s speculation on the anonymous nature of some of the eyewitness in Mark(whose names are revealed in subsequent Gospel versions) were kept anonymous because these people were still being sought by the various authorities in the first decade after the cross.
For these reason, Mark became the essential source of the autograph, in the beginning, and in the subsequent manuscripts , so people sought him out and they came away with a manuscript prepared by Mark. We know Mark went to Alexandria and it is probably he established a cottage industry of scribes for reproducing the autograph and subsequent Gospels as they became available. In spite of Paul’s missionary efforts around Antioch„ the region produced virtually no versions of any gospel until the 4th Century while the majority of the surviving manuscripts AND epistles generated out of Alexandria, the King James Only cult nothwithstanding. There apparently is a manuscript of Mark from the first century currently being authenticated by a reputable publisher (whose name escapes me). If authentic, it will probably be determined to ave originated in Alexandria as one of Mark’s copy of the autograph. We know that, thanks to P-51, that John, the last gospel in the canon to be written, was being copied as early as 90 and no later than 120.
Matthew seems to have been located in Alexandria, which is one reason why his nativity narrative includes Egypt, However, I have come to the opinion resulting from the last revelation of the Qur’an in the Hidden Secret of Sura 74:30 that the Gospel of Matthew was composed in anticipation of Muslims seeking out Jesus in spite of the misdirection arising from Mohammad’s ambitions. In particular, Sura Yusaf 12 is the only story from the Hebrew bible told in its entirety (and accurately) and this sura is another guid post for Muslims seeking Jesus as Joseph is the only other blameless person in the Bible and, of course, Genesis 12 is the moment when Abraham appears, In terms of the desert traditions of Arabs, Matthew is probably the most accessible of the narratives for Muslims: the Six mountains of Matthew conform, in some regards, to the 6 elements of faith in Islam.
Finally, Mark, as a genre, is best understood as journalism in the Atlantic Monthly profile sense of the word. While the content of the narrative, and the attendant theology and Christology, is largely Peter’s testimony, the narrator is someone for whom “duty” is the operative word, The portrait of Jesus that emerges is one of a person under authority and responsible for completing a particular task defined by this authority. The relentless drive of the narrative, the constant drium beat of “Immediately” defines the actions of an absolute, if not myopic, mission orientation. The modern analogy of this particular form of journalism are the various citations for valor which accompany the award of the Congressional Medal of Honor at White House ceremonies. The narrative of Mark begins when Jesus appears over the Roman military horizon wand ends when Jesus has completed the essential step in Bod’s plan of salvation. This is what Cornelius recognized in Jesus (as reflected in Matthew 8 and Luke &) and this is the story that the Roman soldiers who were there told the rest of the Roman legions around camp fires when the subject of the resurrection came up. Unlike the legends of Mohammad, which were not codified until 2 or three centuries after his death, the story of Jesus was being told by Roman soldiers to other Roman soldiers before the sun set on the first Easter. Mark is just the formal testimony of those events.
@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 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 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 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" ?
@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?
@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 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!
@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???
@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.
@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 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.
@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.
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.
@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.
@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...
@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 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 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.
@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?
@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.
@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 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 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 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?
@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.
@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 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 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.
@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.
Do not listen to NT Wright
IMO, Wright is RIGHT.
@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 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 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.
@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 "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 "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 what? isn't that what you're doing with your "only logical conclusion"? is this history? acts grinding? hypothesis and falsification?
@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.
So he's saying American churches often neglect historical details about Jesus, and only care about His divinity and resurrection? For some reason, I'm never clear on what point Wright's making in his lectures (too distracted by the elegant, mellifluous accent).
Granted, it's nice to have a historically-grounded picture of Jesus, but isn't that far less important than Jesus' soteriological significance? The typical layman cares more about his eternal destiny than getting his history straight.
@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. :)
@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 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 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
@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 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 No it's not, but, hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, this speech can be about whatever you like, amigo.
@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 and i don't mean logical sillogisms, an elaboration, an idea built from facts and inferences. ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT.
@sirdelrio And still, not a single specific criticism, minute and second of THIS video, on NT Wright. I'm shocked.
@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 Yes, but I've actually read Dawkins and can opine with an informed opinion. You can't on Wright, right? Ergo...