The Fact of the Crucifixion by N.T. Wright

By -
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.



Reactions:

Comments

Gary said…
I agree 100%. I think mythicists are doing the Anti-Supernaturalism Movement a real disservice by peddling the nonsense that Jesus did not exist and that the crucifixion is a non-historical event.

The Resurrection, on the other hand...
4/14/2017 10:45:00 AM
im-skeptical said…
... that cultural shift is impossible to explain.

Scientology gained more adherents in a shorter time. It's NOT impossible to explain. People are gullible.
4/14/2017 01:21:00 PM
JBsptfn said…
People are gullible, huh? I don't think that you are in a position to call them that, Skep. You seem to believe that life came from non-life. That's way more unlikelier than the Resurrection.
4/15/2017 05:07:00 AM
Bob said…
I wonder why Wright doesn't mention one single piece of evidence for the crucifixion. He says there are 'thousands of things' that serve as proof, so why not tell us about a single one? Would his 'evidence' stand up to scientific scrutiny?

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....
4/15/2017 06:45:00 AM
im-skeptical said…
People are gullible, huh? I don't think that you are in a position to call them that, Skep. You seem to believe that life came from non-life. That's way more unlikelier than the Resurrection.

Better to believe based on observable evidence and science than on unverifiable stories.
4/15/2017 08:43:00 AM
Gary said…
For millennia, humans have attributed events in nature to gods to later find out through the scientific method that very natural explanations lie behind these events. That does not mean that a god did not create the universe, it only means that before we assume again that "a god did it" we should withhold judgment until better evidence is available.

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.
4/15/2017 09:10:00 AM
JBsptfn said…
Better to believe based on observable evidence and science than on unverifiable stories.

Whatever you say, Skep.
4/15/2017 09:32:00 AM
BK said…
Wow, what a bunch of interesting comments. Not particularly enlightening, but interesting.

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.
4/15/2017 12:55:00 PM
im-skeptical said…
your faith in life springing from non-life is not based on observable evidence (which is what you claim to rely upon).

Tell me. When is the last time you saw God creating life?
4/15/2017 02:14:00 PM
BK said…
Relevancy?
4/15/2017 02:35:00 PM
JBsptfn said…
There is none, BK. Skep is just grasping at straws like he always does.
4/15/2017 02:55:00 PM
Joe Hinman said…
Fish does not predate cross. Fish came after anchor and anchor assumes cross. Fish was used as a response to persecution, So they were using the cross before tahtwhen they were not persecuted.

HERE
4/16/2017 09:04:00 AM
im-skeptical said…
Relevancy?

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.
4/16/2017 09:46:00 AM
Bob said…
Joe, your reference says: "The first century symbol wasn't the cross; it was the anchor." Whether the symbol used by early Christians was a fish or an anchor, the conclusion remains that it was NOT the cross; so Wright is still wrong in trying to 'prove' the crucifixion.

So out of the thousands of pieces of evidence that he claims to have, he picks the one that is invalid. Very sad.

4/16/2017 02:04:00 PM
Joe Hinman said…
why an anchor? Because it assumes a cross. it has the cross bar at the top. So it is a cross,

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.
4/16/2017 11:16:00 PM
JBsptfn said…
IMS 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.

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.
4/17/2017 12:04:00 AM
BK said…
Don, please note that IMS's feigned outrage is nothing more than a distraction to avoid answering your original challenge. Really, his anemic understanding of evidence already rules him incapable of rational conversation. I don't know why you bother.
4/17/2017 06:18:00 AM
im-skeptical said…
Please tell me more about my anemic understanding of evidence. You're the one who believes that a third-hand story told by an unknown source, and subsequently edited to comply with church dogma, with zero corroboration outside the bible itself is something that constitutes credible evidence.

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.
4/17/2017 10:38:00 AM
Joe Hinman said…
Skep naturalism is not disproof of SN they are NOT mutually exclusive. SN assumes Nat.

It is false to think no proof SN, the basis of mystical experiences a porori proof of SN.
4/18/2017 01:33:00 AM
Bob said…
Joe, "why an anchor? Because it assumes a cross. it has the cross bar at the top. So it is a cross" doesn't convince me. The anchor was often depicted lying horizontally, unlike a - standing - cross. And the crossbar was often curved. Hence, no attempt was made to 'assume' a cross in these anchors.

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
4/18/2017 11:08:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

By -
Image
As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, "Pride"). The song, of course, concerns MLKJr. (According to U2 Sermons, U2 formerly ran a video of MLKJr giving his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech during the playing of the song.) However, the lyrics of Pride are quite apparently not exclusively about MLKJr.

Unfortunately, I have found little over the Internet where Bono, U2’s lead singer who penned the song, has commented in-depth about Pride. In fact, I have found only one instance where Bono, who is a professing Christian and whose Christian faith is one of the motivating factors behind his humanitarian acts, has commented about the song. In an article entitled Hit Song Breakdown: Pride - U2, the unnamed author quotes from Bono’s statements about Pride in a Rolling Stone interview (with emphasis in the original).

Although Bono is a glorious douche bag, I do love his music and will defend him …
Read more

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

By -
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 h…
Read more

How Should I Be A Sceptic -- belief and reason

By -
[Introductory note from Jason Pratt: the previous entry in this series of posts can be found here. The first entry can be found here.]


Having explained why, as a Christian, I do not hold to what many people (Christian and sceptic) have considered the 'party line' that reason and faith are mutually exclusive, I will now explore this issue from a deeper philosophical perspective.

A Christian (or other religious theist) who accepts a faith/reason disparity will usually do so for religious reasons. His argument that these two aspects must be mutually exclusive (or at least need not have anything to do with each other) will be grounded on positions and presumptions which usually proceed from a devout loyalty to God's status, or from authority of specifically religious leaders, or from the structure of religious ritual, or some combination thereof.

And a sceptic who accepts a faith/reason disparity might do so only because, as far as he can tell, his opposition has chosen that grou…
Read more

Bayes Theorem And Probability of God: No Dice!

By -
Image
It is understandable that naturalistic thinkers are uneasy with the concept of miracles. So should we all be watchful not to believe too quickly because its easy to get caught up in private reasons and ignore reason itself. Thus has more than one intelligent person been taken by both scams and honest mistakes. By the the same token it is equally a  danger that one will remain too long in the skeptical place and become overly committed to doubting everything. From that position the circular reasoning of the naturalist seems so reasonable. There’s never been any proof of miracles before so we can’t accept that there is any now. But that’s only because we keep making the same assumption and thus have always dismissed the evidence that was valid.             At this point most atheists will interject the ECREE issue (or ECREP—extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or “proof”). That would justify the notion of remaining skeptical about miracle evidence even when its good. The…
Read more

Kierkegaard's Knights of Faith and the Account of Abraham

By -
Lately, I have been listening to a series of lectures by Hubert Dreyfus, Ph.D., a Philosophy professor at U.C. Berekley, concerning the writings of Soren Kierkegaard. The lecture has been very interesting, and while I think that Professor Dreyfus has some questionable interpretations of the Bible, his discussions have given me a greater understanding of Kierkegaard's view of faith. Most importantly, it has helped me clarify in my own mind the use of the illustration of a Knight of Faith and the example of Abraham and Isaac.

The Two Knights of Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard, the great Danish philosopher of the 19th Century, can be considered the father of modern existentialism. In his work Fear and Trembling, he wrote about the difference between two types of people whom he called the Knight of Infinite Resignation and the Knight of Faith. In Fear and Trembling, , Kierkegaard identifies Abraham as a Knight of Faith. In his lectures, however, I get the sense that Professor Dreyfus, who I ac…
Read more
By Weekend Fisher -
The Next Big Church Scandal

Money-hungry televangelists taking advantage of the devotion of the poor? Pedophile priests taking advantage of the young? The apocalypse industry? Its syndication in the tabloids? Another big-name preacher succumbs to sexual temptation or to egotism? Christian factions involved in name-calling melee? In-house church politics alienating God-loving members?

Even if they sound familiar, I suspect that none of those will become the next big church scandal. I think there are two huge scandals that we do not see clearly enough. First, that we are not tending our own houses well enough to stop many of these others before they become scandals. We see them coming; where is our outcry? Second, we are not living lives of such active mercy and compassion as to completely dwarf the scandals in comparison.

Wait, but aren't there Christians living lives of mercy and compassion? Sure, and there many of them. Are they notable? Sure, all of them. I don…
Read more

The Meaning of the Manger

By -
The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stable designed to hold fodder for livestock.” Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 674. Usually, we associate the manger with the animals in the story of Christmas or with Jesus’ perceived poverty. I have several nativity sets which include the manger, along with barn animals. Although I am a nativity set enthusiast, there is a much deeper meaning in the manger.

The manger is mentioned three times in Luke 2. Mary lays Jesus in the manger, the angels tell the shepherds that they will find the Savior by seeking the baby lying in a manger, and then the shepherds in fact find Jesus lying in a manger. Obviously, the repetitive references to the manger are indicative of its significance in Luke’s narrative. As Bible scholar N.T. Wright comments:

[I]t was the feeding-trough, appropriately enough, which was the sign to the shepherds. It told them whic…
Read more

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

By -
Scholars frequently pronounce the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist as one of the firmest historical facts about Jesus’ life. See, e.g., James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Vol. I, pages 350 (“This is one of the most securely grounded facts in all the history of Jesus.”); Robert H. Stein, Mark, page 55 (“Jesus’s baptism by John is one of the most certain historical facts we possess concerning the life of Jesus.”). This post will focus on the account of Jesus’ baptism in Mark and a challenge to its historicity from Neil G. at Vridar. Here is the relevant passage.

John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. John was clothed with camel's hair and wore a leather belt around his waist, and his diet was locusts and wild honey.

And he was preaching, and saying…
Read more

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

By -
A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer:

You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels."

Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus di…
Read more

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?

By -
Image
I have always contended that the primary reason to believe in Christianity is because its true. I have said in prior blogposts that if Christianity were false, we should abandon it. Why? Because Christians, who are followers of the one who identified himself as "the way, and the truth and the life" (John 14:6), should be dedicated to the truth above everything else.

Frank Turek, proud purveyor of Cross-Examined, has posted a video entitled "One Question You Should Always Ask an Unbeliever." It is pretty insightful, and the question that should always be asked really does get to the heart of the earnestness of the unbelievers in their views.

If

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian? It's a pretty straightforward question. The straightforward answer should be either yes or no. In a sane world, I would expect almost anyone answering the question in an equally straightforward manner would answer yes, but Turek points out that some of the people to…
Read more