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

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

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

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

Dr. John Lennox: Video - Christmas for Doubters

By -
Image
John Lennox is a wonderful spokesman for Christianity. In many ways, he is the one Christian apologist who has acquired the mantle of C.S. Lewis in the way that he is able to take points that are sometimes difficult for those unfamiliar with thinking about Christianity and reduces them to simple arguments using metaphors and examples that anyone can understand.

Since it is the Christmas season, I thought it worthwhile to point a video by Dr. Lennox entitled "Christmas for Doubters." In the video, he responds to the idea that the early Christians believed in the Virgin Birth because they were too ignorant to understand how babies were conceived. Rather, by comparing the accounts of the birth of Jesus with the birth of John the Baptist, Dr. Lennox shows that those who wrote the Gospels understood that the authors of the Gospels did have an understanding of where babies come from, but that they understood that the births of both Jesus and John the Baptist were outside of ordin…
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

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

By -
One of the most interesting passages in Mark’s Passion Narrative, from a historiographical perspective, is Mark 15:21:

A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country and they forced him to carry the cross.
First let us compare the passage to its parallels in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew (it does not appear at all in the Gospel of John).

As they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and they laid the cross on him, and made him carry it behind Jesus.
Luke 23:26.

As they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene named Simon; they compelled this man to carry his cross.
Matt 27:32.

Matthew and Luke retain the reference to Simon as well as describe him as being from Cyrene, but drop the reference to Cyrene being “the father of Alexander and Rufus.”

It is notable that Mark identifies Simon by name. This is rare for Mark unless the author is referring to the disciples and some famil…
Read more

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

By -
Image
William Lane Craig remains one of the most erudite and knowledgeable of today's Christian philosophers. His book, Reasonable Faith, has remained one of my favorite Apologetics tools because he lays out many of the Christian claims so clearly and cogently that only the most hardened of skeptics dismisses him or his work as being without weight. Certainly, his writings have led many people to turn their hearts toward Jesus.

We are blessed that Dr. Craig maintains a website also called Reasonable Faith with lots of information that can be accessed free of charge to make a case for Christianity. One of the great features of his website includes a question and answer section where Dr. Craig selects questions that have been addressed to him, and he generally provides really good answers that can help inform all Christians' Apologetics efforts. Unfortunately, this blog has not referenced Dr. Craig's work nearly as often as we ought, but I want to focus on one of the questions …
Read more

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition

By -
Image
“[What] we have today is worse than ignorance of the Bible. It is contempt for it. Just about anyone who quotes the Bible, let alone says it is the source of his or her values, is essentially regarded as a simpleton who is anti-science, anti-intellectual and sexist.” ~ Dennis Prager, Jewish thinker and nationally syndicated talk show host, from I’m Back, Here’s Where I’ve Been. There is no question that Christianity in the West is under attack from some in the public square. While Christians are still able to worship as they choose and to follow their faith (as long as they do so in private), one would need to be blind to overlook the effort by some to turn the public perception of Christianity as being backwards, ignorant and responsible for hatred. For example, in May 2011 the Huffington Post, the left-leaning Internet website, published an article entitled If You’re a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong by Cenk Uygur wherein Uygur expressed what I cannot doubt is the view of…
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

Fine Tuning Bait and Switch

By -
Image
Jeff Lowder at Secular Outpost, argues against William Lane Craig's fine tuning argument. His objective is to show that even if the argument is valid it doesn't establish probability for God.

Lowdwer's syllogism of the argument:

1. The life-permitting nature of the universe’s initial conditions is either the result of chance, necessity or design. (Premise)
2. It is not the result of chance or necessity. (Premise)
3. Therefore, it is the result of design. (From 1 and 2)

This argument is clearly valid, i.e., the conclusion follows from the premises. We want to know the probability of (3). The probability of (3) will depend upon the probability of (2). If we have a very weak degree of belief that (2) is true, say we think Pr(2)=0.25, then, by itself, this argument only warrants the belief Pr(3)=0.25. N.B. I’m not claiming that (2) has an exact numerical probability equal to 0.25; that value is simply an example to illustrate the point.[1]Excluding it as a result of chance means sh…
Read more