The Fact of the Crucifixion by N.T. Wright
I don’t agree with everything that N.T. Wright writes (pun
intended), but he is dead-on here. No comments needed – what he says stands for
itself.
How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?
A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that some of the skepticism about the account was unjustified. One argument I made was that the number of children killed in Bethlehem would likely have been no more than 20. Though obviously an act of great evil, the killing of 20 children would be much less likely to be noticed by historians of the time than the slaughter of thousands as later traditions speculated. In response to the post, Peter Kirby asked a few questions. He has patiently waited my response, continuously delayed by work, family, and the completion of my Acts article . Two of the questions had to do with how the amount of 20 was determined. Others with the omission of the account by Luke and the reliability of the tradition recounted by Macrobius. Peter also mentioned that there were other reasons to doubt the story's historicity beyond just the silence of other sources. I ...
Comments
The Resurrection, on the other hand...
Scientology gained more adherents in a shorter time. It's NOT impossible to explain. People are gullible.
Wright is ostensibly wrong when he says that 'From the very beginning, Christians made the cross the symbol of their movement" The early Chistians didn't portray the crucifiction at all; they used the 'fish' symbol to indicate their religion, and portrayed Jesus as a teacher (e.g. in the Roam catacombes). So if the portrayal of the crucifiction by early Christians is Wright's strongest evidence....
Better to believe based on observable evidence and science than on unverifiable stories.
However, I do believe that the evidence is clear that even if a god did create the universe, it could not have been Yahweh. Any being who believes that a firmament (a dome) exists above the earth could not have created our complex universe.
Whatever you say, Skep.
im-skeptical - Yes, people are gullible. That's the reason so many people believe what Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins write. And Don was 100% right that your faith in life springing from non-life is not based on observable evidence (which is what you claim to rely upon).
Bob, it's a short piece -- less than two minutes long. He was merely stating what historians accept, not providing the evidence in this clip.
Gary, agree with your first post but then you lose me on the second paragraph of the second. A debate for another day, perhaps.
Tell me. When is the last time you saw God creating life?
HERE
Are you serious? You just accused me of having no observable evidence for my naturalism (despite the obvious fact that EVERYTHING we observe has no visible supernatural element). Meanwhile, you believe that God created life, despite the fact that you have NEVER observed any such thing. You have never observed a supernatural being, let alone a supernatural being creating life. But you insist that your belief is based on evidence.
So out of the thousands of pieces of evidence that he claims to have, he picks the one that is invalid. Very sad.
what you are saying is like saying "they didn't believe in Jesus Christ God'/s son as savior but iijm fish; that is what the fish meant.
God acts outside of nature, so you can't see him. As Joe says, he is being itself.
And, while I have never seen God create life (none of us were there), I have never seen things create themselves without some conscious mind having to do with their creation.
My evidence for naturalism is ubiquitous. I don't observe anything in the universe that is supernatural in origin. And your evidence is the same. You just believe that God had to be the maker of it all. But that's not evidence - it's just belief.
And why you address your remark to Don, when it wasn't his post, and he hasn't participated in this discussion so far, is yet another mystery that defies explanation. But that's par for the course when trying to engage in rational discussion with you.
It is false to think no proof SN, the basis of mystical experiences a porori proof of SN.
Your reference mentions several reasons why the anchor was used a s a symbol, but NOT that it suggests a cross: the main reasons would have been a representation of Hebrews 6:19: "We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure." (NIV)
By the way, Wikipedia says "Among the symbols employed by the early Christians, that of the fish seems to have ranked first in importance."
Still no evidence for the crucifixion.......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_symbolism