Tap to unmute

Tom NT Wright on the birth of Jesus: Fact or Fiction?

  Рет қаралды 34,113

Premier Unbelievable?

Premier Unbelievable?

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 260
@JerryFlander
@JerryFlander 19 күн бұрын
Well done NT Wright! Thank you
@ShawHortonMusic
@ShawHortonMusic 12 күн бұрын
So glad to hear season two will begin in January! This podcast has been a blessing!
@liteenergy4843
@liteenergy4843 17 күн бұрын
I don't understand why so many people's faith is dependent on the accuracy of the Bible as opposed to a personal experience of Christ-the experience of his Spirit, his Light, his Love, his Energy, and so forth.
@brygenon
@brygenon 16 күн бұрын
A fine question, and while I cannot speak for "so many people", I myself oft harp on factual accuracy because my personal experience with the risen Christ is -- as with Allah, Brahma, Chi, and dowsing -- that when I've personally sought to experience them, they were absent. When I try to take a factually accurate approach, I find them in lore and the beliefs of others, including others I greatly respect, but in factual reality all the more clearly absent.
@liteenergy4843
@liteenergy4843 16 күн бұрын
@@brygenon I understand what you mean by seeking to personally experience Christ and other spiritual presences and finding them "absent" or just not there. About half the time when I try to do this deliberately or intentionally, I find them just "not there" as well. Other times it works and even works out quite well. Other times the Spirit and Presence of Christ seems to show up in my life when I'm not asking or trying that much at all. I really don't know why things happen this way at all. Richard Rohr, who is a pretty prominent Christian speaker says the same thing happens to him, so I figure I can't be that bad off or incompetent in this respect. Lately, I've been trying to meditate or focus on the presence of Christ whenever I think of it or remember to. It's just little moments of focusing on what I know and understand about His Spirit and Love. I haven't been doing it for that long, so I can't tell you how it's working for me. However, I don't think it can be harmful or destructive.
@brygenon
@brygenon 15 күн бұрын
@@liteenergy4843 And I've no doubt that students of martial arts master George Dillman did at times feel they were taken down to the mat down by chi with his touchless knockout technique.
@peterjermey7235
@peterjermey7235 15 күн бұрын
Because church leaders can control the Bible. They cannot control the Holy Spirit. With the Bible they can say "you have the wrong interpretation" and so most of them promote faith in the Bible or really faith in the leaders interpretation of the Bible, not faith in God. And then lots and lots of people's faith falls apart when they realize the Earth isn't 4000 years old or they have a gay family member or they find that what they are taught in church contradicts what it actually says in the Bible.
@bluebird635
@bluebird635 15 күн бұрын
"If Christ did not rise from the dead, then your faith is in vain. You are yet in your sins" ---1 Corinthians 15. Factuality matters. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me"---factuality matters
@betharnold2125
@betharnold2125 18 күн бұрын
I have heard the writers of the Bible wrote 25:00 by events and not chronologically. Funny how so many skeptics listen to N.T…it’s good we all need to learn a new perspective! It’s hard to put our egos aside sometimes, especially if we have been jaded. I appreciate your voice and work.
@Now_We_Are_Sussex
@Now_We_Are_Sussex 10 күн бұрын
Years ago I saw a Moody science film that showed exactly what Tom says @22 minutes. Wish I had the film so I could watch it again.
@KimtheElder
@KimtheElder 13 күн бұрын
Looking forward to the new episodes 😊
@mfinn7880
@mfinn7880 16 күн бұрын
Brilliant. The research of FX Bruce is very good as is the Book called "Evidence that demands a verdict" by J McDowell.
@chthonica
@chthonica 15 күн бұрын
Thank you for this, Justin!
@PatricksLesson
@PatricksLesson 14 күн бұрын
I can say Simply Jesus was one of Wright’s best books! Also, Surprised by Hope and Surprised by Scripture gives credence to the Gospel narratives as well.
@Zippy8027
@Zippy8027 15 күн бұрын
'There is no epistemological Switzerland' says Wright. Brilliant!
@henokafework1979
@henokafework1979 16 күн бұрын
You guys are blessings
@JesusSaves4Ever777
@JesusSaves4Ever777 5 сағат бұрын
Jesus Saves ❤
@tawhv
@tawhv 9 күн бұрын
If the Gospels or a Gospel were written long before Paul's death, would Paul have known the Gospel and yet not mentioned it in his letters? Would the author of the Gospel have tried to contact Paul to ask him what he knew about the life of Jesus?
@hello21467
@hello21467 14 күн бұрын
5:02 what was the answer?
@LoveGOD-LovePeople777
@LoveGOD-LovePeople777 19 күн бұрын
Glory to God. Thank You Jesus.
@jaggedstarrPI
@jaggedstarrPI 16 күн бұрын
Damn it, I really want to know WHY Rev Wright dates Mark after AD 70. The attitude that we "know" it's later because Jesus couldn't have known, I have always found to be just surrenduring Christianity as much as "knowing" the resurrection didn't happen. I would love an answer from Rev Wright or Justin or anyone who knows Wright's answer to this critical point.
@bluebird635
@bluebird635 14 күн бұрын
well....this is his analysis. Crossley thinks parts of the gospels may be dated before 40 AD/CE.... But 60-75 AD/CE for Mark's date seem to be the usual range
@tookie36
@tookie36 7 күн бұрын
16:45 it doesn’t sound naive. It sounds like he is asking a basic question bc any time there is a discrepancy in the gospels, NT wright and others will say “you have to understand this is how the ancients spoke”. After hearing this ad nauseam some may want to know what is going on. Did Jesus walk on water? Was the story symbolic? Is there symbolism and history involved? If Christians were open and honest things would go so much easier
@bobsnead1153
@bobsnead1153 13 күн бұрын
It seems a bit odd to me that God gave us the Bible, but made it such that it's unclear how we should read it.
@PirateRadioPodcasts
@PirateRadioPodcasts 18 күн бұрын
Q - How many times did JC reference the term BORN AGAIN? 35? Seems rather significant. WELL worth taking note of, inc. the question of (SANHEDRIN member) NIOODEMUS.
@Mercyme57
@Mercyme57 19 күн бұрын
Is that Christmas story that the Eastenders script writer did still available..? Anyone..?
@oliveblake8154
@oliveblake8154 19 күн бұрын
2:43 The problem isn’t that the events are recorded only once. It’s that they contradict each other on multiple historical points.
@theodoreturner5567
@theodoreturner5567 19 күн бұрын
All of the apparent contradictions can easily be seen as strong evidence of the factual accounts.
@Augustus_McCrae
@Augustus_McCrae 19 күн бұрын
If the contradiction is opposed to a feature once, the contradiction can be considered an argument from silence that one author included it and another did not. I'd be curious of your thoughts on what the historical points are.
@johnbarr7421
@johnbarr7421 18 күн бұрын
@@Augustus_McCraePlease read both Matthew and Luke, the contradictions are very clear. For example, birth date either during Herod the Great's reign, or when Quirinius was governer.There is a decade between these two events. And why no mention of Jesus magical birth anywhere in the New Testament outside of just 4 chapters.
@Augustus_McCrae
@Augustus_McCrae 18 күн бұрын
@@johnbarr7421 Thanks for the reply. I think I somewhat addressed this in another reply on this video. I'm not sure that the debate will ever be settled as to who was wrong --- Luke in (2:1) or Josephus (Ant. 18.4-23), or if they were even talking about the same census. If we take it at face value, it appears as a 10 year gap, but I'm not sure that it is that clear cut. Indeed, it seems that Caesar Augustus was the type of leader who ordered many censuses in his day. Records exist to show that Roman-controlled Egypt had begun a census as early as 10 B.C. and it was repeated every 14 years. And Augustus himself notes in his Res Gestae (The Deeds of Augustus) that he ordered three wide-spread censuses of Roman citizens, one in 28B.C., one in 8 B.C. and one in 14 A.D. In between there are several other censuses that happened locally across Rome. Luke's account corroborates the idea of multiple censuses for Judea when he writes "This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." Certainly, the word "first" implies that more than one census happened. (Article, Come Reason). On another occasion, an enrollment of all the people of the empire happened to swear an oath of allegiance to Caesar. In Chapter 34 of Res Gestae Augustus also notes, "When I administered my thirteenth consulate (2 B.C.E.), the senate and Equestrian order and Roman people all called me father of the country, and voted that the same be inscribed in the vestibule of my temple". Josephus also mentions a time "When all good people gave assurance of their good will to Caesar". These types of tributes would also require an enrollment of individuals from across the empire. Orosius, a fifth century Christian, links this registration with the birth of Jesus saying that "all of the peoples of the great nations were to take an oath". (Article, Come Reason). Taking all of this together, we have at least three censuses in the area of Judea - one in 8 B.C., one starting around 2 B.C. and one in 6 A.D. The only point that is really in question, then, is whether Luke was mistaken in ascribing this census to the time when Quirinius was in the role of Syrian Governor. (Article, Come Reason). Each census, as I understand it took as long as 14 years and as little as 5 years. gMark is almost explicitly about the life, divinity as messiah and death of Jesus. gJohn is about the miracles, and ascension of Jesus. The gospels were not written in sequential order, nor were they written to the same audience. Some of the differences speak to the purpose, audience and message the gospel letters were written. Lastly, I think our post-enlightenment view of rational thought skews our ability to read these writings as intended. It is important to understand rational thought and reason in antiquity not the 21st century.
@bluebird635
@bluebird635 18 күн бұрын
@@johnbarr7421 Quirinius was in the Mediterranean region and held different posts in that region, including during the era of Herod the Great. Herod the Great was gone by about March/April of what is now 4 BC....as for Matthew and Luke, don't count them out. Luke's knowledge of geography, historical detail, administrative titles of minor officials -- plus other things --- at least makes him worth attending to. And Matthew may have been telling the same story for a different audience....all this has been suggested before.
@annchovey2089
@annchovey2089 16 күн бұрын
Read “Can I Trust the Bible” by Amy Orr-Ewing. There is a KZbin video of the same name where she covers a lot of the high points of the book.
@mfinn7880
@mfinn7880 16 күн бұрын
Ask any Detective... human recollection (of people / events) can vary substantially between a lot of people, witnessing the exact same event...
@bluebird635
@bluebird635 14 күн бұрын
yet they often come up with guilty verdicts or clients proven innocent.
@JohnDunkley
@JohnDunkley 18 күн бұрын
I studied some books about Budda, many years ago, and in their own documents they said that none of it was written down until 500years after his death. Yet in Christianity many documents were written 20-30years after Jesus's death and resurrection, making it much more reliable.
@progidy7
@progidy7 18 күн бұрын
And still not very reliable. Fascinating.
@bluebird635
@bluebird635 18 күн бұрын
@@progidy7 actually more reliable than you suggest (gospels that is)
@progidy7
@progidy7 18 күн бұрын
@@bluebird635 all those blatant contradictions just make it more reliable. They can't even get the lord's prayer on sync 🤦
@davethebrahman9870
@davethebrahman9870 18 күн бұрын
@@JohnDunkley Texts about Sai Baba were written during his lifetime, as were adoring tales about Joseph Smith. Do you trust those accounts?
@trevornunn3285
@trevornunn3285 18 күн бұрын
Except that Jesus is a myth
@wendywhitaker4846
@wendywhitaker4846 12 күн бұрын
What if the gospels were first oral traditions in Armaic created by the apostles, then translated by Mark, Matthew, and Luke?
@peterjermey7235
@peterjermey7235 15 күн бұрын
A problem with the argument that "we have more copies than that of Lucretious" is that there's less incentive for the powerful to alter writing from a poet (or even a historian) than there is a major religious text and also less risk. People aren't going to change their whole lives based on verse of poetry, but they will a verse of the Bible. Another problem is that there's only one author of other texts. The four canonical gospels don't always agree, even assuming our version is roughly accurate and they themselves were chosen to fit the agenda of the Roman government
@bluebird635
@bluebird635 14 күн бұрын
interesting....I don't know why Rome would care....and much of NT teaching would have rubbed the policies and customs of Rome the wrong way. Didn't Gibbons blame the fall of Rome on the rise of Christianity?
@peterjermey7235
@peterjermey7235 14 күн бұрын
@bluebird635 because the government controlled the people through the state religion of Christianity. Gibbon blamed the decline on attacks by the surrounding tribes.
@bluebird635
@bluebird635 13 күн бұрын
@@peterjermey7235 well...this probably depends on what is considered "government." The general message of early Christian theology -- like Jewish theology from which it grew -- had enough in it to annoy Rome, not be adopted by them -- --till Constantine but after him, the Dark Ages saw the first time that slavery was eliminated anywhere in the world at least from what I have read, and it came through the clergy. So much for the state being in control. The other forms of literature that were transcribed and passed along --why they are not so numerous is a good question. Literacy was not prized, people sent their children to be apprenticed for "real jobs" etc..... The printing press and the subsequent work on biblical translation --- was disastrous for the Church's control of the message eventually. (See Luther.) Took a bit of time....
@blackstter6317
@blackstter6317 17 күн бұрын
If the Bible is the true word of an omnipotent God, as Christians claim, why are there any edits in it at all?
@PACSHN
@PACSHN 17 күн бұрын
I am intrigued by the references to alleged contradictions between the Gospel of Luke and Matthew in regards to the period encompassing Jesus's birth and the flight to Egypt. I disagree that there is any contradiction. My reasoning as follows: Luke's Gospel covers the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, the visit of the shepherds to the crib, the circumcision and Jesus's presentation at the Temple as a newborn. Matthew Chapter 2, covers the period one to two years after Christ's birth. In Matthew 2:7 Herod carefully ascertains from the Magi the time when the star had appeared to them, before sending them to Bethlehem, based on his inquiry of the Chief Priests and Scribes in Matthew 2:4 as to where the Christ was to be born. In Matthew 2:16 Herod orders the killing of all boys in Bethlehem and all its neighbourhood who were 2 years old and under, according to the time he had carefully ascertained from the Magi in 2:7. When the flight to Egypt took place, clearly Jesus was no longer a newborn. He was we can surmise between 1 and 2 years of age. Described as a child in Matthew 2:11. Turning now to Luke 2:39 and the reference to and when they had fulfilled all things prescribed in the law, they returned to Galilee, into their own town of Nazareth. This fulfilment is a reference to Micah 5:2, Hosea 11:1 and Jeremiah 31:15, narrated within a combination of Matthew and Lukes Gospels. The Gospel's don't contradict, they complement one another. Just to add to my earlier post: Contrary to a typical depiction of the nativity Luke 2:1-20 makes no reference to the Magi or a star. In Matthew 2:1 we learn that: Soon afterwards, some men who studied the stars came from the East. Initially visiting Jerusalem where they met Herod, the subsequent events described in Matthew then took place including their visit to Bethlehem to see Jesus Matthew 2:8. The Escape to Egypt Matthew 2:13-15 and the Killing of the children. Matthew 16:18. Advocates of the irreconcilable contradiction between the Gospels of Luke and Matthew in this regard claim that Luke 2:39 presents a contradiction. I disagree my reasoning in more detail is as follows: Luke 2:39 makes reference to the Holy Family having “fulfilled everything required by the Law of the Lord” as preceding their return to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. The Law of the Lord is the Old Testament. Jesus confirms this in Luke 24:44 when he says “Everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled”. In doing so indicating that this included the whole of the Tanakh, the Torah, The Nevi’im or prophets and the Ketuvim or writings. Jeremiah was a latter Prophet, Hosea and Micah were both minor Prophets. Whilst Luke’s gospel does not provide an account of the fulfilment of the prophecies of Hosea 11:1 and Jeremiah 31:15, he does however state that the Holy family returned to Nazareth after fulfilling everything required by the Law of the Lord. Matthew’s Gospel provides the details of the relevant fulfilment of prophecy in the corresponding verses Matthew 2:15 “Out of Egypt I called my son” and 2:18 “A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more. The omission of the account of these events from three Gospels is not therefore a contradiction. We see throughout the New Testament Gospels that they do not have identical content but serve to complement one another to provide a fuller picture of the Lord’s early years and ministry.
@JuanLhuv
@JuanLhuv 17 күн бұрын
Of course you can strive to splice those two Gospels together, but the other 2 Gospels make no reference to the fabulous events that comprise the birth narrative. Nor does Paul. Nor does any other portion of the New Testament. The fact that we love the nativity tale so much makes it even more curious that so compelling a story wasn't reiterated throughout the New Testament.
@davethebrahman9870
@davethebrahman9870 14 күн бұрын
@@PACSHN No. The reference in Luke 2:39 is very obviously to the fulfillment of the commandment regarding purificatory sacrifice discussed immediately before the verse. You are twisting the meaning to make it fit your doctrinal assumption.
@theFijian
@theFijian 15 күн бұрын
11:30 good question
@Indorm
@Indorm 18 күн бұрын
I came here from Alex O'Connor and Bart Ehrman laughing and joking about things in the narratives I think only prove that there's some real history written by some real ancients, and I don't see why it's funny. Unfortunately they have something like 80k views, leading more people into unnecessary doubt. It's so sad, but what can we do?
@progidy7
@progidy7 18 күн бұрын
You can keep believing the contradictions
@Indorm
@Indorm 18 күн бұрын
@ because thankfully I grew up with sound theology which taught me organic inspiration, that the Bible was written by ordinary people, each with their own human viewpoint, but that there’s a silver line going through it, a central theme of God’s love for us that leads to Jesus. All these silly distractions are just silly distractions. There is no doubt that Jesus lived and was who he was, despite the humanity of the Bible writers.
@tomgreene1843
@tomgreene1843 17 күн бұрын
Would you have a different expectation ....will they be laughing at the Koran next do you think ?
@Indorm
@Indorm 17 күн бұрын
Poor O'Connor lives in a country full of Islamic extremists. I think he knows he should 'behave' to save his life.
@brygenon
@brygenon 16 күн бұрын
Then I fear you have taken the wrong lessons from O'Connor and Ehrman. Bishop Wright is correct that all writers had agendas, but he is an apologist and seems unaware of how we get more reliable historical data. Wright brings up Ehrman to say Ehrman was frustrating to debate because he, Wright, would make a point then come Ehrman would come against it from a different and unexpected angle. Yeah, what a surprise when a Bishop debates a scholar who deals with fact.
@progidy7
@progidy7 18 күн бұрын
5:57 "it's perfectly reasonable to say that God intended us to have these texts. That doesn't mean we know how to read them." It sure sounds like your boy is the author of confusion then.
@bluebird635
@bluebird635 18 күн бұрын
what's your confusion? Understanding context, culture, theological perspectives --- all are important. No confusion
@throckmortensnivel2850
@throckmortensnivel2850 17 күн бұрын
I always find it a bit amusing that people who don't trust what they read in yesterday's newpaper are convinced that something written two thousand years ago is "gospel". As far as Christmas, there are a couple of things I know for sure. The bulk of the world's population lives in the northern hemisphere, and the northern hemisphere is where the winter solstice is quite an important event. The return of the Sun is celebrated all over the Northern hemisphere, and has been for thousands of years. The Roman feast of Saturnalia was celebrated at the Winter Solstice near 400 years before Jesus was born. So, yeah, there are some myths about Christmas. One of them is that it is a celebration of the birth or Christ. Well, I suppose it is, but it's a latecomer to the Winter Solstice celebrations.
@meteor1237
@meteor1237 16 күн бұрын
A bad copy is still a bad copy no matter the number. Numbers don’t make truth.
@worleybirdfilms
@worleybirdfilms 13 күн бұрын
Yep, but what sort of evidence points us to a text being a “bad copy”?
@beksinski
@beksinski 18 күн бұрын
One thing most historians seem to agree on is that evidence generally deteriorates with time. Given that I don't see how a two thousand year old document can verify an event that cannot be verified today with living eyewitnesses. Please explain how this makes sense.
@bluebird635
@bluebird635 18 күн бұрын
Evidence "generally deteriorating with time" ---this would refer to evidence of an auto accident? a badly cooked fruitcake? the sinking of the Titanic? Evidence of which event? There are details in gospel accounts that have some archaeological/historical confirmation --- not to mention knowledge of cultural details etc.
@stephengray1344
@stephengray1344 18 күн бұрын
I'm not sure what you're confused about. There are no events from 2000 years ago which can be verified today with living eyewitnesses. Because anybody who is actually old enough to have been an eyewitness is keeping very quiet about their age. That's why historians who are trying to determine if something happened two thousand years ago look at documents that are close to the time. Because those are the only things we have which have any possibility of recording the testimony of eyewitnesses to the event.
@bluebird635
@bluebird635 18 күн бұрын
well...today those eyewitnesses are all gone. So we have documents....for everything. The reality is that if people (or nations) value something, they will keep records. And they do.
@tomgreene1843
@tomgreene1843 17 күн бұрын
Who alive today was at Waterloo ?
@bluebird635
@bluebird635 14 күн бұрын
There are many things that we hold to be true today without the presence of living eyewitnesses ...such as the Battle of the Little Bighorn......the bubonic plague (twice)....the crusades....the discoveries of Columbus.....the demise of the Donner Party....the Noble 300 etc....
@EndlessSummer-dh
@EndlessSummer-dh 15 күн бұрын
It makes no difference because if you base your moral philosophy on a story that might not be correct, you have built it on shifting sand because no one records facts absolutely accurately. The moral statement that we should love our enemies does not depend on the truth of the story. It is based on reason.
@RLBays
@RLBays 18 күн бұрын
Im pretty sure most everyone believes that Jesus was born. 😂
@whitehart11
@whitehart11 16 күн бұрын
Don't think so
@dodo1opps
@dodo1opps 19 күн бұрын
Opinion...opinion...opinion...
@billmarvel8111
@billmarvel8111 18 күн бұрын
Yep and everyone has one.
@estherharfordcarson1227
@estherharfordcarson1227 22 күн бұрын
Of course it happened! The Bible is very clear on that.
@JohnBarr-r5b
@JohnBarr-r5b 21 күн бұрын
The only thing the Bible is clear about, is that there is no clarity about the nativity story. What facts do you get about the birth of Jesus from Paul, Mark or John? And how do you resolve the many disagreements between Matthew and Luke?
@zhengfuukusheng9238
@zhengfuukusheng9238 20 күн бұрын
The bible is a book of Fiction
@holdontoyourwig
@holdontoyourwig 19 күн бұрын
The Quran must be true because it is very clear on that.
@ALavin-en1kr
@ALavin-en1kr 19 күн бұрын
There is always something stupid being expressed on our way to atheistic trans humanism and this is more of this stupidly. Jesus who is the avatar of the West was born and did have Christ consciousness which is awareness not only in the body and environment but of the whole cosmos or God. There are many avatars in the East who have this level of consciousness. Jesus is the avatar or savior in the West and the stupid second-guessers who do not know what consciousness is, what Christ consciousness is, or what cosmic consciousness is are coming up with their ignorant opinions. The definition of religion is that to which we are bound, not everyone can get it, that is a given, but find something else to do. If you are not an expert in something or do not understand then you are playing the fool and should cease and desist as you are commenting on something you do not understand and are out of your depth.
@derekallen4568
@derekallen4568 19 күн бұрын
If you believe in magic then everything in the bible is true
@jim6690
@jim6690 17 күн бұрын
Here's my problem with Wright. He writes an 800 page tome defending the resurrection, then he hems and haws regarding the ascension. Such a typical British "evangelical".
@jacobsamuel60
@jacobsamuel60 17 күн бұрын
What does Wright say about ascension?
@jim6690
@jim6690 16 күн бұрын
@@jacobsamuel60 Listen from 20:15.
@jacobsamuel60
@jacobsamuel60 16 күн бұрын
I don’t think he is denying ascension. After the resurrection Jesus appeared to the disciples several times and he left them. But this time his ‘leaving’ had to be special. He is not going to appear to them again in the same way. Instead he had promised the ‘coming’ of the Holy Spirit in a special way. It is interesting that only Luke mentions the ascension in his gospel and Acts. Luke says “He was taken up and a cloud hid him from their sight”. Cloud need not be in the skies (remember mount of transfiguration). We “need not” imagine that Jesus travelled through the atmosphere and went up as a space shuttle goes to the moon. Jesus disappeared in a special way. This is what I think Luke tries to tell us. I do agree with Wright.
@richardchee4677
@richardchee4677 19 күн бұрын
The Christ Pantocrator of Saint Catherine's Monastery at Mount Sinai, 6th century AD Born c. 6 to 4 BC[a] Herodian kingdom, Roman Empire[5] Died AD 30 or 33 (aged 33 or 38) Jerusalem, Judaea, Roman Empire Cause of death Crucifixion[b] Known for Central figure of Christianity Major prophet in Islam and Druze Manifestation of God in Baháʼí Faith Parent(s) Mary, Joseph[c] Jesus[d] (c. 6 to 4 BC - AD 30 or 33), also referred to as Jesus Christ,[e] Jesus of Nazareth, and many other names and titles, was a 1st-century Jewish preacher and religious leader.[10] He is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion. Most Christian denominations believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant from the Davidic line that is prophesied in the Old Testament. Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically.[f] Accounts of Jesus's life are contained in the Gospels, especially the four canonical Gospels in the New Testament. Academic research has yielded various views on the historical reliability of the Gospels and how closely they reflect the historical Jesus.[18][g][21][22]
@richardchee4677
@richardchee4677 19 күн бұрын
My brother has written 5 pages on the Genealogy of the entire bible from Adam to the Second Coming
@bluebird635
@bluebird635 18 күн бұрын
must have used small print...no one knows date of Second Coming.
@progidy7
@progidy7 18 күн бұрын
And?
@STARTTHEMBOTH
@STARTTHEMBOTH 17 күн бұрын
Second coming?
@davethebrahman9870
@davethebrahman9870 22 күн бұрын
Looking forward to this. NT Wright is merely a preacher. That’s why he adds all this stuff about his family and Bach.
@stunningkruger
@stunningkruger 20 күн бұрын
was it worth the wait?
@davethebrahman9870
@davethebrahman9870 19 күн бұрын
⁠@@stunningkrugerYes I enjoyed it. He was remarkably silly as usual.
@Augustus_McCrae
@Augustus_McCrae 18 күн бұрын
Yikes --- that's a pretty serious dismissal of his extensive education and past positions held in academia. Exeter College, Oxford (B.A.) Wycliffe Hall, Oxford (M.A.) Merton College, Oxford (D.Phil) University of Oxford (D.D.)
@davethebrahman9870
@davethebrahman9870 18 күн бұрын
@@Augustus_McCrae Thanks again for replying. Surely it isn’t news to you that there is a close and ancient relationship between the colleges and the Anglican Church? :) To my mind Wright disqualified himself as an intellectual when he rejected the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as modern mythology, and as a serious NT scholar when he mistranslated Luke 2:2 for the purpose of saving the credit of Luke as an historian.
@Augustus_McCrae
@Augustus_McCrae 18 күн бұрын
​@@davethebrahman9870 🥶
@stunningkruger
@stunningkruger 20 күн бұрын
well it is called the cross-of-fiction but i think you missed a trick by not calling it "the birth of Jesus: Fact or Faked?" 😇 🙏
@grantbartley483
@grantbartley483 19 күн бұрын
When was it faked? And what's your evidence for that? Dan Brown?
@progidy7
@progidy7 18 күн бұрын
We have copies and copies and copies of the gospels. And embarrassment of typos i mean riches!
@tomgreene1843
@tomgreene1843 17 күн бұрын
Sorry ...no typos back in those days .
@Stoiction
@Stoiction 19 күн бұрын
The Creator Game of life known three word “ GOD”.
@brygenon
@brygenon 18 күн бұрын
NT Wright is a theologian and merely dabbles in ancient history. He is right that many facts of ancient history are not really reliably established, but that is *not* a point in favor of the Christian fables. His points about the assignation of Caesar in 44 BC and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD are laughable because he gives the dates right there while there is not a single event in the Jesus stories for which historians can say what year it happened. History Professor William Propp in his excellent and easily accessible talk, "What was the Exodus", makes the point that the standard of evidence in history is quite a bit higher than in religion, and he means the academic discipline of religious studies, not theology as doctors of divinity such as Wright put out. Propp follows by conceding that historians do not reach the level of laboratory science, which is a problem for supernatural fables because when we scientifically look for miracles they reliably and repeatable do not happen. Ancient historical writings are replete with stories of miracles, and outside religious fringes we understand them to be human inventions. Wright is an expert on the Apostle Paul. How would Paul know anything about Jesus? Well, according to the undisputed letters of Paul, he did *not* get the info from human witnesses. His stated sources are divine revelation and his reading of Jewish scriptures. The Book of Acts of the Apostles further describes, three times, Paul receiving his initial revelation on the road to Damascus. Is there a rational argument for taking historical or thanatological data from what a zealous control-freak allegedly heard from a magical voice in the sky? Edit: spelling and formatting
@bluebird635
@bluebird635 18 күн бұрын
It's a bit unfair to say that Wright "dabbles" in ancient history. That would be part and parcel of what he does. Propp would be right only if discussing his own standards for history---which is precisely what the Exodus and the accounts of the actions of Jesus--and His resurrection---profess to be. I suspect Paul knew quite a bit about Jesus of Nazareth actually. He just did not, at first, believe that he was God Incarnate because it messed with Paul's eschatology and his world view. He had an epiphany and this altered the course of his life and his theology. Stuff happens!
@Easternromanfan
@Easternromanfan 18 күн бұрын
No, he is historian who is published on the subjects he speaks of and has actively taught NT history at universities such as oxford. He is not a layman like you or I. Also yes, a middle eastern poor jew who is actively teaching to other middle eastern poor jews are hard to pin point the exact year that something happened in their lives in comparison to major geopolitical events. What a surprise.
@brygenon
@brygenon 18 күн бұрын
@@Easternromanfan William Propp is a historian while NT Wright is not. Bart Ehrman is arguable. Wright is an an Anglican bishop and a Doctor of Divinity. His university positions have been at religious colleges or at least, as at Oxford which you name, religious sections. Oh... I see that he was also awarded a philosophy degree. Do you read what you write before you you click the "reply" button? Have you read what they call holy scripture? Magi from East followed a star to a birth with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. You call that ancient Jew "poor"?
@bluebird635
@bluebird635 17 күн бұрын
@@brygenon So which "ancient Jew" are you calling "poor" The offerings made originally by Joseph and Mary -- in the temple --- seem to be the offerings of people of modest means. But yes, you are correct...gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh would have upgraded their lifestyle a bit --- maybe subsidized the flight to Egypt and so forth. But a family of obscure means is essentially what is meant originally.
@michaelhaywood3106
@michaelhaywood3106 17 күн бұрын
As soon as you use the word fables your personal bias is spewed out for all to see. I’m curious, is your bias the result of personal moral failure or personal pain. Don’t pretend it is from independent inquiry. It is good to be honest with yourself.
@rickdavies4801
@rickdavies4801 19 күн бұрын
Totally fiction and you know it. So please stop lying
@stephengray1344
@stephengray1344 18 күн бұрын
The only lie here is your lie that Wright knows that the gospel accounts are fiction.
@NomadicCole
@NomadicCole 18 күн бұрын
@@stephengray1344NT write is a theologian who dabbles in history. He’s an apologist.
@davethebrahman9870
@davethebrahman9870 19 күн бұрын
The difference between the other ancient authors and the gospel authors is that the latter are motivated by belief, their birth stories are inconsistent, and they make significant errors. No one would consider other historical documents like that reliable. It is irrelevant that ‘some things make sense’. The claim that we know one or two very probable facts about Jesus has nothing to do with the birth narratives, which are held by almost all NT scholars to be fictive accounts. The fact that other historians have ‘agenda’ is also irrelevant, many ancient historians wrote reliable accounts of events without the discrepancies and historical improbabilities we find in Matthew and Luke; but even if that were not the case, it would only mean that the gospels were as unreliable as the other documents. Wright’s claim about the manuscript evidence seems deliberately misleading, the thousands of copies are the result of copying bias and are all no earlier than the 3rd century other than P52, probably late 2nd or early 3rd; we have a very small manuscript sample before the 6th century. We don’t know at all that the NT text is ‘secure’, because it could have been greatly altered before our first extant copies. Further, Wright’s early dating is just guess-work; the ‘abomination of desolation’ does not date Mark, any more than a reference to the Reichstag fire dates a book about the 2nd world war. As for the stuff about ‘we in the West’, yes, some of us still do believe in ‘unvarnished facts’, which is why we reject the gospel narratives as history. It is in fact Wright, not sceptics, who is trying to introduce a general scepticism in order to claim that all history is as unreliable as the gospels. ‘Selection and arrangement’ is not the problem, it is the outright failure of the anonymous gospel authors to present a trustworthy story.
@Augustus_McCrae
@Augustus_McCrae 19 күн бұрын
@davethebrahman9870 Are you a historian by chance? You bring forward some interesting points. What are your thoughts on imaginative historiography? How do we quantify that almost "all" NT scholars hold to the birth narratives as fictive accounts? What, in your opinion, are the inconsistencies between Matthew and Luke? What are your thoughts on Josephus as a historian? Is he reliable? I am going to respectfully disagree on your arguments on the manuscript evidence. Even Dr. Ehrman concedes that the NT text is reliable and NT textual critics and historians can and have established the original wording with 99% accuracy. Look forward to your thoughts.
@kalew37
@kalew37 19 күн бұрын
This is the most ignorant diatribe I think I’ve ever heard. Embarrassed for you.
@davethebrahman9870
@davethebrahman9870 19 күн бұрын
@ What did I get wrong? If you can’t show anything it is your own post that is shameful.
@Augustus_McCrae
@Augustus_McCrae 19 күн бұрын
@davethebrahman9870 Are you a historian? You bring forward some great things to consider. But, what is so inconsistent in the birth narratives that can't be reconciled? Do you consider Josephus as an accurate historian? Thoughts on imaginative historiography applied to scripture? How do we quantify a majority of NT scholars dismissing the birth narratives as fictive accounts? Would you agree that a lot of NT scholars, secular and evangelical, agree that the "embarrassment of riches" of NT manuscripts give them the ability to, within 99% accuracy, know what was originally written? Wouldn't you agree that the well attested authorship of the gospels are well preserved in writings of the apostolic fathers? Wright makes a good point that every writer has motives for what they write. As you did in your comment and my reply. All the comments [mostly] on this video are talking about this video from varying perspectives, but in the end we're all writing about this video and the gist of it. Lastly, thoughts on inconsistency in scripture and the criteria of embarrassment? I mean after all your original post shows to have been edited --- but biblical authors left the messy in.
@davethebrahman9870
@davethebrahman9870 19 күн бұрын
@@Augustus_McCrae Thanks for the reply. Not an historian, interested layman 1. Inconsistencies: Why did the birth occur in Bethlehem? Was it because they lived there or for the impossible ‘census of Quirinius’? Did they go from there to Egypt or to Nazareth, and if the former how did they get to Jerusalem in time for the purification rite? Did Magi or shepherds attend the birth? Did the angel appear to Mary or was it a dream? How is Jesus born before the death of Herod in Matthew, ten years later in Luke?
@MattStemp
@MattStemp 18 күн бұрын
The terrible thing about this kind of apologetics is the assumption that Christian faith depends on beliefs in historicity. It doesn't.
@hezkyden
@hezkyden 17 күн бұрын
What? historical events such as Christ's death and resurrection? According to the Apostle Paul, if Christ be not risen then your faith is vain. 1Corinthians 15:14-17 - King James Version 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
@michaelhaywood3106
@michaelhaywood3106 17 күн бұрын
Of course it does.
@MattStemp
@MattStemp 17 күн бұрын
(1) Even if this famous passage from St Paul was evidence that his view requires (in miraculously modern terms) a belief in the historicity of the resurrection, one can be a Christian without agreeing with everything he says. (2) The passage quoted in no way refers to or requires belief in the historicity of the resurrection. It refers to the actuality, the lived reality of resurrection, which is in no sense the same thing. St Paul himself did not experience the resurrection; he had a vision (or experienced the appearance) of the risen Christ. He believed that death (read: the power of death, our fear of death) had been defeated by God in Christ. Neither his experience nor his conviction require the historicity of the resurrection.
@hezkyden
@hezkyden 11 күн бұрын
@@MattStemp You argue yourself into hell. The vision that Paul had of the risen Christ is worthless unless Christ had physically died and then been physically resurrected, albeit with a spiritual Body. That is the clear implication of the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:14-17.
@MattStemp
@MattStemp 10 күн бұрын
@@hezkyden It sounds like you are in hell already. For you depend for the reality of your faith upon a mere belief, rather than the Living God.
@richardchee4677
@richardchee4677 19 күн бұрын
According to the Apostle Constitution Jesus Birthday was on October 6/4 BC . Jesus was Born in a Tent called Sukkot and not in a Barn or in a Cave The Greek Celebrate Jesus Birthday for the First 3 Century just as the Apostle Constitution did.. Today people celebrate of Light for the says because Jesus says I Am the Light of this world.. Today people celebrate Saint Nicklaus Birthday according to COKE A COLA
@bluebird635
@bluebird635 18 күн бұрын
Good enough date for observing the birth....There are many theories on date of birth. No one knows because---well --- the earliest followers of Jesus wanted to distinguish Him from all those ratty deities that everyone else talked about. Saturn and so on.... Followers of Jesus believed He was eternal God...always existed but came to live among us and to take upon Himself the penalty for our sins. This is because you and I cannot be "good enough." Someone had to pay the price for our stuff. So the date of birth was not of interest. Not till later and then no one could recall knowing a date.
@zhengfuukusheng9238
@zhengfuukusheng9238 20 күн бұрын
And.....the biggest myth of all is....... *JEESUS*
@LoveGOD-LovePeople777
@LoveGOD-LovePeople777 19 күн бұрын
Well antiquity has proven that you are incorrect!!!
@zhengfuukusheng9238
@zhengfuukusheng9238 19 күн бұрын
How has it done that?
@grantbartley483
@grantbartley483 19 күн бұрын
As CS Lewis said, Jesus is the truth that brings all the myths of the world together?
@zhengfuukusheng9238
@zhengfuukusheng9238 19 күн бұрын
CS Lewis was the chump who couldn't figure out there could be other options than Liar Lord Lunatic
@grantbartley483
@grantbartley483 19 күн бұрын
@@zhengfuukusheng9238 What sort of discussion style is that, first you have to misrepresent the person rudely, and then you have to misrepresent his argument? Please stop thinking that is a good way to discuss ideas. Anyway, he may have said, those are the three most obvious options. Or he might have been being rhetorical. Etc.
@PatricksLesson
@PatricksLesson 14 күн бұрын
I can say Simply Jesus was one of Wright’s best books! Also, Surprised by Hope and Surprised by Scripture gives credence to the Gospel narratives as well.
Арыстанның айқасы, Тәуіржанның шайқасы!
25:51
QosLike / ҚосЛайк / Косылайық
Рет қаралды 700 М.
99.9% IMPOSSIBLE
00:24
STORROR
Рет қаралды 31 МЛН
How Strong Is Tape?
00:24
Stokes Twins
Рет қаралды 96 МЛН
Bart Ehrman Freedom From Religion Foundation Lecture
1:06:51
Scott Burdick
Рет қаралды 183 М.
When Was Jesus REALLY born??
27:21
Bruce Avilla
Рет қаралды 2,8 МЛН
N.T Wright on the Bible's Most Misunderstood Verse
53:24
Christianity Today
Рет қаралды 274 М.
Oxford Mathematician DESTROYS Atheism In Less Than 15 Minutes (BRILLIANT!)
15:43
Sex, LGBTQ+, Pre-Marital Relationships and Identity... Ask NT Wright ANYTHING!
26:37
N. T. Wright on the Future of the World
1:04:54
FULLER studio
Рет қаралды 263 М.