NT Wright: resurrection of Jesus, reliability of the New Testament, and virtue ethics

NT Wright, Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of St. Andrews was interviewed by science teacher and author Jasu Markkanen while visiting the Finnish Bible Institute in January 3, 2019. The interview moves in topics such as the reliability of the New Testament accounts on Jesus' life, death and resurrection, the Christian view on virtue ethics, and the reading of the Old Testament creation narratives.
Unfortunately, the recording with the microphones did not work out as planned. Due to this the sound quality is not as good as you would hope.
› www.veritasforum.fi
› VeritasForumFinland
› VeritasForumFI
› veritasforumfi
* * *
Support our work:
Veritas Forums are organized by OPKO in Finland. Donations can be made through OPKO's account and reference number:
› Account: FI10 8000 1301 0446 09 (BIC DABAFIHH).
› Reference: 2095
MobilePay: 44074
Fundraising permit:
RA/2020/1574
veritasforum.fi/tue/

[@VeritasForumFinland]

Unfortunately, the recording with the microphones did not work out as planned. Due to this the sound quality is not as good as you would hope. Valitettavasti äänitys kaulamikrofoneilla epäonnistui, ja tästä syystä ääni ei ole niin hyvä kuin olisimme toivoneet.

[@acortes7771]

VeritasForumFinland, nevertheless, it sounds good overall. I really enjoyed the dialogue. Thanks for uploading:-)!

[@wellnessgirl2806]

This upload is much appreciated and truthfully I had not noticed any sound issues.

[@timothykamei290]

Still audible. Thanks for this clip

[@michaelbrickley2443]

The truth does not need to be presented in the most hi tech, high-quality way, in order for it to be appreciated

[@michaelbrickley2443]

@@wellnessgirl2806, The idea of quality of content over quality of presentation

[@GBabuu]

NT Wright is worth listening all day!!! I enjoyed every bit of this !! Thanks for the post

[@michaelbrickley2443]

Godfrey Babu, always stimulating to the heart, soul and eternal spirit

[@michaelbrickley2443]

Dd S, troll much?

[@vousandi8673]

brilliant. what a mind.

[@revmaingismuchai1526]

God bless you Prof, you always bless me.

[@virginiashroyer2279]

I love these forum’s! Thank’s to brother Wright and everyone else who participates!

[@talithakoum1266]

Like “elegant math” NT Wright marvelously puts into words the beautiful and simple message of Jesus. ❤️

[@paulshoh4327]

Thanks for everything! NT Wright said “Image bearer”, which means Building the Character in United with the Messiah Yeshua Out Lord! Amen and Amen 🙏

[@MorrisonsProphecy]

This is an excellent discussion. Very thought provoking.

[@michaelbrickley2443]

@Noel Hausler, much has been written about the “contradictions” of the Gospels yet if they were exactly the same then it would have been collusion, wouldn’t it? Three witnesses to a crime. Similar but different accounts. Your dating is way off from what I know about this but the most concrete evidence for the truth of the resurrection is the fact that Christ bodily resurrection was not part of any Hebrew theology at that time and the creedal statements were in wide circulation within 5 years after the event. Many would put them between 1-3 years.

[@jonnsmith180]

@@michaelbrickley2443 They are the same. 95% of Mark is in Matthew. 65% of Mark is in Luke. 35% of Mark is in John. They all stole from Mark and are NOT eye witness accounts. Fact.

[@michaelbrickley2443]

@@jonnsmith180, haha….keep believing the BS you’re putting out. I’ve seen miracles in my life and He made Himself manifest to me in 1990. You can believe what you want.

[@Ateam1983]

The meta-narrative of God and the gospel is "not a power story but a self-giving love story"

[@AlbertoTaure]

They did not confect these stories to support their beliefs but rather they develop these beliefs to explain unbelievable things that actually happened

[@richardadams974]

I am becoming a fan of N T Wright

[@JosephHerbert-n3c]

Tom Wright is one of only 14 bible teachers that I study from all if history. But the Bible is a power story. It is the story of resurrection power being greater than natural power and human power.

[@viwelolwane]

His voice has presence

[@eileenduuton6974]

I enjoy your reasoning on the scriptures. Keep up the good work and I hope you will be blessed

[@scottdunlop8141]

Very good

[@remalim9471]

Such a well trained mind.

[@gregdiprinzio9280]

Prof. Wright could you witness to Prof. Don Paterson? He's very confused about God. Would love to seem him use his great gift for the glory of God.

[@johncook19]

I would suggest that Tom Wright takes seriously Joseph Atwill, because he does not under rate the cleverness and astuteness of the Roman Flavians. I would like to know what Tom Wright thinks of the Atwill historical analysis.

[@tonyokrongly3235]

For at least 30 years after Jesus' followers claimed that he rose from the dead they were walking around Jerusalem saying it over and over and over again at the Temple and elsewhere. At any point any Roman authority or Any Jewish temple authority could have said, "No he didn't because LOOK here is his body in the tomb." But they couldn't. Also the idea that Jesus' followers would have stolen the body is crazy because not one single follower of Jesus (or any previous Messiah) every imagined any scenario where he would come back to life and rise from the dead. Nobody even thought of it as a concept at all until it happened. And they were shocked when it did.

[@robertlight5227]

What is your physical evidence the JC was a living physical man?

[@Bassmaster_UK_Band]

The accounts of Josephus and Tacitus.

[@robertlight5227]

I am not asking for more text claims. I am asking for physical evidence. Do you know the difference?@@Bassmaster_UK_Band

[@robertlight5227]

@@Bassmaster_UK_Band Those accounts are not physical evidence. they are copies of copies of copies from lost manuscripts of doubtful authorship. I repeat, what is your physical evidence for a physical JC?

[@davidglock9316]

Just read a book by Philip d r Griffith, "When Wright is Wrong", for me it demonstrates that Wright's understanding of the covenants is wrong. It has given me a much better understanding of justification by faith.

[@glendavis3257]

Professor Wright: I propose to you, that if you really had found THE Truth; you like your fellow protestant ex-pastor Scott Hahn; would have found that the ONLY Church that Jesus Himself founded: the Catholic Church was the ONLY place where we could find the Whole TRUTH. Because Jesus Himself is STILL Present; Body, Blood, Soul And Divinity in the HOLY Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church along with the 7 sacraments He gave to HIS Church, and not only 2 or 3 that the protestant churches retain.

[@superviola88]

Scripture is His Word. His Church are believers (in a spiritual, not physical sense) in his Word. Follow His Word (ie the Scriptures). Not other the self proclaimed "facts".

[@RamonOrellana-z7g]

So Paul concluded that Jesus rose from the dead and now free of physical needs and corruption--the true example of resurrection. So Jesus, when he appeared to his inquisitive apostles...he asked for some leftover foods---because he was hungry! That's the way to elevate oneself from corrupt physicality to uncorruptible glory: eat corruptible leftover boiled fish.

[@ziontheelder1697]

22:25 -

[@ianhall3822]

The crucifixion of Jesus? What about the massacre of the children under two years old in Bethlehem and the surrounding districts, by Herod after the birth of Jesus, in order to fulfil a prophecy? No grief shown by Christians about them.

[@remalim9471]

Not everything was recorded in the Gospels. But there is a verse referring to it " Rachel weeping for her children" Matt. 2:18.

[@obad.iah.]

Torille !!!!

[@braybilly]

This man does not believe in the inspiration of the holy scriptures. Even though the apostles, including Peter referenced the other apostles writings. And Paul also said that everyone should read their writings. This man, I would be very careful listening to.

[@allenperry7887]

I think of all this guys scholarly knowledge, and the hundreds of books he has read and the other 100 he has written, theres a chance he might have skipped over the single sentence that states God uses the simple things to confound the wise. I cannot follow a man Calvin, Wright or otherwise. I'll stick with the king James bible because although fundamentally he seems sound, but spiritually it seems like hes made theology way over complex. Must be careful when you are taking the bible with private interpretation. Jesus said my yoke is easy and my burden is light. He didnt say you need to be a scholar, a theologian, have a special understanding. This guy kind of leads you to believe that jesus was only a man period. Theres a real voice about the bible that says lamin or scholar, Jew or Gentile know matter what you know, where you come from or what you've done in your life, theres a sin problem and God is in control and he sent his only begotten son who was before the foundation of the world, to save those that would believe upon him. Died, rose again on the 3rd day. That's it! There is no other way to salvation and it's that easy because not everyone has a scholarly mind and resources to dive that deep into the origins of christianity and it's not with your mind that you are saved it what's in your heart after God has convicted you by the holy spirit. How much knowledge did the thief on the cross have when Jesus told him he would be in paradise on that day? I'd have to say not much. He had a conviction in his heart, admitted that conviction to Jesus and simply asked to be remembered in the kingdom. What did that take a few hours, minutes, seconds, he didnt read 1000 books, he simply believed and confessed and it was done. The grace of God abounds upon all who seek him and believe in his son. Theres no need to make it any more complex than that. I'm confident a complete knowledge increase of all the unknown questions will be known after we have new bodies.

[@70AD-user45]

"I'll stick with the KJV". Don't assume you have perfect translation which fell out of the heavenly realm. Translation errors like "end of the world" instead of "end of the aeon" (Greek word for age) appear in the KJV. The translators use the word Easter when the correct translation is Passover. The translators even have St.Paul contradicting himself in the same book. It's best to use a variety of different translations.

[@DerrickthePinecone]

He also claims to 'speak in tongues' when he prays, but speaking in tongues (essentially a WRITTEN, SPOKEN LANGUAGE, and not mere 'heaven chatter' or babbling nonsensical words) was specifically a sign to the Jews! The modern day charismatic movement has infiltrated this into their many heretical and damnable doctrines and have had millions of people over the years babbling into the air without having any clue what they're saying, thinking that they're doing it for God knows what reason. This, too, gets into the Kundalini stuff and the eastern religions that essentially conjure and contact demonic entities, but that's another can of worms. Anyway, interesting comment!

[@70AD-user45]

@@DerrickthePinecone Speaking in tongues came with the Gifts of the Spirit and the Gifts ceased at the end of the Old Covenant age in 70 AD. The Old Testament prophecied that these gifts were for the final generation of Old Covenant of Israel, which was from 30 AD (the cross) to 70 AD (end of the age). You're right, it was a sign the end was coming.

[@DerrickthePinecone]

@@70AD-user45 Exactly my point! I agree!

[@jonnsmith180]

They are the same. 95% of Mark is in Matthew. 65% of Mark is in Luke. 35% of Mark is in John. They all stole from Mark and are NOT eye witness accounts. Fact.

[@JoshJ12]

Yea books written around the Mediterranean with no form of instant communication, read by the very witnesses of Christ and their followers, was copied haha. That is a funny joke. You don’t have to be a Christian to recognize that the Gospels are not a copy of each other.

[@P.H.888]

Surprisingly that 4 people wrote about Jesus and they are similar?

[@AtamMardes]

The sin-sacrifice-resurrection story implies a superstitious God who values blood sacrifice, which was a common practice (e.g. sacrificing a goat for a new home) 2000 yrs ago. Don’t you see how the early superstitious folks who valued blood sacrifice created the God of The Bible in their own image?

[@DerrickthePinecone]

To speculate that the pagans/etc. who required a blood sacrifice is no real profound proof that the God of The Bible doesn't exist, which is what's implied in your comment. Have you ever perhaps stopped and think that maybe the pagans were mimicking God? You should do a deep study of Blood and what it really is and what it means. There's 'life' in the blood. Have you ever wondered: "Where did blood come from?"

[@AtamMardes]

@@DerrickthePinecone The early delusional confused superstitious hypocrites, who made up the Abraham story, did not realize that they were contradicting their own definition of their imaginary God. If God is omniscient then God would have known about Abraham's sincerity without needing to resort to child abuse.

[@AtamMardes]

@@DerrickthePinecone *Please explain,* *-In what context it is moral to turn children into indentured servitude volunteered workers?* *-In what context it is moral to treat indentured servitude volunteered workers as property?* *-In what context it is moral to pass indentured servitude volunteered workers to children as permanent inheritance?* *-In what context it is moral to treat indentured servitude volunteered workers so bad that relatives shouldn’t be treated that way?* *-If it was indentured servitude volunteered work, then why it is restricted to only foreigners?* Leviticus 25:44-46 However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. * Please explain, in what context it is moral to beat indentured servitude volunteered workers with many blows?* Luke 12:47 The servant who knows the master's will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. * Please explain, in what context it is moral to beat indentured servitude volunteered workers as long as they don't die?* Exodus 21:20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. * Please explain, in what context it is moral to kill non-virgin brides?* Deuteronomy 22:20-21 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you. * Please explain, in what context it is moral to kill unruly children?* Deuteronomy 21:18-21 If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear. * Please explain, in what context it is moral to slaughter infants?* 1 Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and *infants,* cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

[@AtamMardes]

@@DerrickthePinecone It is obvious that delusional superstitious barbaric hypocrites made up the God of the Bible. You really should be ashamed of yourself for praising a God who orders the slaughter of even one infant in any context.

[@AtamMardes]

@@DerrickthePinecone Reading the Bible isn't enough; you have to read the Bible & actually think about it to realize the truth that the God of The Bible was conjured up by hypocrites who were intellectually comparable to today’s Afghan warlords.

[@jonnsmith180]

Reliability of the NT? Not very. End of argument.

[@kentzepick4169]

😂😂😂

[@ericbess4477]

This is crazy talk.

[@frisb.7948]

Yup; and it's amazing more people can't see that.

[@ronaldthompson9294]

Which means, "I don't understand what he is saying."

[@jacobkats3670]

Dd S “I don’t like what he’s saying so he’s a conman.”

[@bennjmin]

I'm not believing what NT Wright says, but I always feel like it's still 1000x better than the kind of morons who pretend to know when someone's crazy or "full of shit", as such arrogance always reveals a person who doesn't know shit about religion, what exactly people believe, and how exactly belief functions in most normal people.

[@lilchristian3260]

Bennyamin exactly people who say mean things about the opponent do so because they have no real counter argument

[@MrBlockHead]

38:40 Darwin is starting to fall apart. If he does that will be very helpful to us americans.

[@ramigilneas9274]

Meanwhile in reality Christianity is falling apart in all western countries.

[@BrendonSmith-e9v]

This is simply scientifically untrue. You may want to believe this and that is your prerogative.

[@briankelly5828]

Is he correct in what he says about Peter's angel? I haven't heard this before.Wright also likes to take a pop at Americans, too, which he does in a blunderbuss fashion, without drawing proper distinctions. I fear this is his cultural annoyance as an Englishman with America. His comments on 'Empire' are just his politics coming through under a religious banner. His writing on 'justification' has not convinced many either - and that includes British evangelicals.As for saying (at 37 minutes), 'I want to encourage my American friends not to export their culture wars to us', what Wright means is: 'Christianity is dead in Europe and Darwinism rules, along with sexual liberalism. We State churches have no idea at all how to change this - but I will still slag you off.' As if Darwinism was uncontested truth and didn't raise very serious problems for Christian theodicy! He does not really grasp the issues. He wants peace with a post-Christian Establishment. It won't work,.

[@ianhall3822]

Jesus could neither read nor write, so was unable to write down his sayings. He spoke in a language called Aramaic, and forty years after his death, someone must have remembered what he said in Aramaic, and was able to translate that into Greek ,the language of the Gospels. Plenty of room for error here.

[@curtpowell3795]

Jesus is described as reading the scroll in the synagogue in Luke 4. So at the very least he could read Hebrew. Secondly, we know from Qumran and other places that the Septuagint Greek translation of the scriptures were used in the synagogues. So it is possible He could read Greek as well.

[@remalim9471]

Jesus could read and write.

[@pauljomento8357]

Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. See the last word in that verse there?

[@remalim9471]

No. He could read and write. Every Jewish boy learns these skills because of their education system.

[@remalim9471]

The book of Mark is said to have been out in the lifetimes of eye witnesses.

[@ianhall3822]

Jesus admitted that he was not God, and that he was a bad man like everyone else. Luke 18 verse 19 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God". Nothing more need to be said on the subject.

[@curtpowell3795]

Unless of course, what he was saying was: "Don't you realize that by calling me good you are calling me God?" He is not rebuking the man for his presumption, He is asking him rhetorically to think through the implications of what he is saying. Jesus leaves the question "Why do you call me good?" hanging unanswered, because the answer he is looking for is: " I call you good because you are God"

[@remalim9471]

You have totally misunderstood or misread the text. "Why do you call me good?......" means Jesus is saying " You are absolutely right here. I am God"

[@remalim9471]

Got it, Ian Hall?

[@pauljomento8357]

Read the other commenters to your response and see how your exegesis falls flat by taking it out of context completely. Nothing more need to be said on the subject.

[@patriklindholm7576]

This was just cringily poor preaching fabricated upon assertions and flawed reasoning without even a hint of noteworthy content but for the already gullible. Any conceived god figure would quite warrantedly be upset and ashamed of like representation and in its claimed omnipotence likely put a swift end to such drivel, which in itself already speaks volumes regarding the claim as a whole.

[@stls800]

That is a sudointelectual bubble bro

[@ianhall3822]

Jesus had the most barbaric attitude towards women. He believed in the laws of the Old Testament, when he said in Matthew 5 verse 18 that "Not one iota of the law nor one stroke of a letter, shall pass away from the law". So, he believed that it is right that hundreds of thousands of women should die in childbirth every year, mainly in the Third World, because Eve, in the Garden of Eden ate forbidden fruit. Genesis 3 verse 16. He believed that a girl who was not a virgin on her wedding night, should be stoned to death.(But not the man who robbed her of her virginity). If a girl, engaged to be married, was raped, and did not scream out if people were around who could have heard her screams, she must be put to death. If a girl not engaged to be married is raped, she must marry the rapist, after the rapist has paid compensation to the father. Deuteronomy chapter 22.

[@karinberryman2009]

He was barbaric too, with the woman at the well, right? No Jew would speak to a Samaritan, much less a female! But he chose to address that poor miserable female’s loneliness! And when the locals dragged a (adulterous) woman before Him, to force Him to condemn her, He turned their spite (toward her) into self examination! By the way, do you know any ancient books that were focused on the lives of lowly women, other than the book of Ruth, and the book of Esther from the Bible? Tell me in which global cultures women were safe and valued more than the Judao civilisation?

[@JoshJ12]

This is how you have an incorrect analysis of what Jesus said. Jesus was talking about the laws of God concerning sin, the Ten Commandments and laws of repentance etc. He wasn’t talking about day to day laws that Moses gave. He rebuked divorce even though Moses gave the right to divorce. Jesus knew how some of the law was abused and how some of the laws of Moses. The “pain” aspect is the important part where pain is brought into the world and the first pain to be experienced is childbirth and that is a testament to all humans about the result of sin.

[@lepidoptera9337]

The original sin theology is not part of Judaism. It was invented long after Jesus' death in the 4th century AD. We can agree that Judaism wasn't good to women, but that has absolutely nothing to do with Genesis 3.

[@JoshJ12]

@@lepidoptera9337 You have to be careful when describing original sin as something that was invented. For example, original sin is the first sin committed and that is of disobedience of God, but the concept of how that sin impacts the world is different across Christianity. For example, the Orthodox believe that the son shall not inherit the sins of the father, but the the impact of sin can be seen through generations. Likewise, the sin of Adam and Eve caused themselves to be removed from Eden, and their removal of God’s presence allowed spiritual death and other curses of evils to persist, not because a baby deserves it, rather the bell of evil rings throughout the world.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@JoshJ12 Dude. Read Genesis 3. It doesn't even have the word "sin" in it. Or the words "fall" or anything else that actually correlates with the theological bullshit that your priest/preacher/Dad/friendly self-made internet theologian told you. You were simply sold a bunch of goods as a child and you can't let go of it, no matter the actual textual evidence. That is exactly how religion works: it completely removes your ability to think independently. :-)