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.



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...
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
JBsptfn said…
Better to believe based on observable evidence and science than on unverifiable stories.

Whatever you say, Skep.
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.
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?
BK said…
Relevancy?
JBsptfn said…
There is none, BK. Skep is just grasping at straws like he always does.
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
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.
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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

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

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

How Should I Be A Sceptic -- belief and reason

Bayes Theorem And Probability of God: No Dice!

Kierkegaard's Knights of Faith and the Account of Abraham

The Meaning of the Manger

The Origin of Life and the Fallacy of Composition

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?